b Exempt from disclosure
London Borough of Lambeth
Pre-hearing process summary
Name of subject member:
Councillor Steve Reed
Name of the complainant:
Betty Evans-Jacas
Case ref.:
02/09-10
Name of the standards committee member who will chair the hearing:
Christopher Braun
Name of the monitoring officer:
Mark Hynes, Director of Governance & Democracy
Name of the ethical standards officer who referred the matter:
Not applicable
Name of the clerk of the hearing or other administrative officer:
Tim Stephens, Democratic Services Manager
Date the pre-hearing process summary was produced:
24 January 2011
Date, time and place of the hearing:
Tuesday 15 February 2011 at 10:00am at Room 125, Lambeth Town Hall. Brixton Hill, London, SW2 1RW.
Summary of the complaint:
The original complaint concerned:
• An email sent to Labour Group by Councillors Steve Reed and Jackie Meldrum about (the then) Councillor Betty Evans- Jacas (Brixton Hill ward) who had resigned from the Labour Party and joined the Conservative Party • Subsequent articles posted by Councillor Steve Reed on his blog and Twitter sites.
The identified failures to comply with the Code as set out in the Investigation report are as follows:
Paragraph 4 of the Code : {disclosure of information given in confidence} – see para. 9.1 of the IO’s report (page 26)
By posting an article on his website and making a posting on www.twitter.com on 16 October 2009 referring to Councillor Evans-Jacas’s arrears of council tax and bar on voting as he was:
- acting in his official capacity; - ought reasonably to have been aware that this was information of a confidential nature; and - the manner of the disclosure did not satisfy the exception set out at paragraph 4(a)(i) - (iv) of the Code.
Paragraph 3(1) of the Code : {treat others with respect} – see para. 9.2 of the IO’s report (page 26)
By disclosing information about {then} Councillor Evans-Jacas which he ought reasonably to have been aware was of a confidential nature in breach of paragraph 4, and further through the inclusion of statements on his website and postings on www.twitter.com .
However, with regard to the www.twitter.com postings, Councillor Reed can be said to have the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Relevant section or sections of the Code of Conduct:
3. (1) You must treat others with respect.
4. You must not:
(a) disclose information given to you in confidence by anyone, or information acquired by you which you believe, or ought reasonably to be aware, is of a confidential nature, except where - (i) you have the consent of a person authorised to give it; (ii) you are required by law to do so; (iii) the disclosure is made to a third party for the purpose of obtaining professional advice provided that the third party agrees not to disclose the information to any other person; or (iv) the disclosure is - (aa) reasonable and in the public interest; and (bb) made in good faith and in compliance with the reasonable requirements of the authority; or
Findings of fact in the investigation report that are agreed:
No information was received from Councillor Steve Reed’s solicitor.
Findings of fact in the investigation report that are not agreed:
Paragraph number from Reasons for disagreeing with the findings of Suggestion as to how the paragraph should the investigation report fact provided in that paragraph read 1.2 We do not agree that Councillor Reed failed to None given. comply with the Code of Conduct Paragraphs 3.1 and 4. Our response to the second draft report dated 9 th June 2010 refers to many of the matters relating to these allegations and in many instances were not satisfactorily addressed in the issue of the final report.
3.2. It should be made clear in this paragraph that None given. Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (Section 106) applies no matter what amount of Council Tax the member owes.
The Section 106 obligation is to declare that the Section 106 applies; there is no obligation to disclose the actual amounts owed or over what period.
3.3 We disagree with the interpretation of Paragraph 4 None given. of the Code of Conduct. We refer again to our letter of the 9 th June 2010 which deals with the Data Protection Act issues.
We refer to the new protocol adopted by the Council in which It is made clear how to deal with the disclosure of information with regard to Section 106 matters. However, there was clearly a grey area over these issues before this protocol was published.
The Standards Board for England guidance states that information that would not be released under the Freedom of Information Act is confidential or is of a confidential nature. However, we do not agree with the over simplified conclusion of Paragraph 3 which says Council Tax payment history would not be released under a Freedom of Information Act request and so can be concluded to be of a confidential nature.
We consider and will make submissions at the hearing that it is not.
5.4 It is accepted that this e-mail is “private” as it is None given. sent to the Council’s Labour Group. We consider that, given that it was sent as a private e-mail no consideration in the report has been given to the fact that there was simply no need for Councillor Reed to invent this account of the conversation that he had with Councillor Evans-Jacas in relation to the special responsibility allowances. We consider that this is evidence in the absence of a witness to the conversation that Councillor Reed accurately described Councillor Evans-Jacas’ approach to discussions with him prior to her defection. We consider that this adds credibility to Councillor Reed’s evidence.
6.2. Councillor Meldrum indicates at Paragraph 6.2 (ii) None given. she is of the view that “being barred from voting can not be confidential as if the subject matter turns up to vote they must disclose this. Some of the specifics of the matter may however be confidential”. This accords with our interpretation that the details of the Council Tax arrears and the position of a member who is in Council Tax arrears are different.
6.1 (v) We consider that the letter which was sent by None given. Councillor Evans-Jacas to Brixton Hill residents on the 9 th October 2009 places this matter firmly in the political arena. In the extract quoted from the letter in the report the Labour Party is mentioned three times within two paragraphs.
The Standards Board for England would have been aware of the political content of the to-ing and fro- ing between the two members and we consider that they would have categorised this complaint as part of the political “rough and tumble” which members are expected to endure in their position as Council members.
7. We consider that the issue of official capacity has None given. been misinterpreted in this report. We consider that all the writing referred to in the allegation can be classified as political outpourings which remove them from the remit of the Code of Conduct. We consider that Councillor Reed in his personal blog and at www.twitter.com was at all times acting in either a personal or a political individual’s capacity Therefore, it can not be said that any of the writings represented his work as a Councillor or the leader of the Group.
7.2. We refer to our position set out in relation to None given. Paragraph 3.3 and maintain that the fact that Councillor Evans-Jacas was in arrears and was obliged to declare this at all full Council meetings where the budget was discussed, does not equate to “personal information” as defined in the Freedom of Information Act as “personal data” as defined by the DPAct.
We refer you again to the letter dated 9 th June 2010 which sets out our objections to the reasoning in this report in relation to the nature of the confidential information and the exceptions set out in the Code of Conduct with particular reference to the public interest test. Our position remains that Councillor Reed made the declarations about Councillor Evans-Jacas in the public interest and in good faith. We consider that the arguments in the final report in relation to ulterior motives for making the disclosures are not properly made out. It has to be accepted that in the political spheres of local government most public exchanges have an eye on the next Election. We consider that these exchanges are no different. We accept that Councillor Reed has not failed to comply with the Code of Conduct Paragraph 3.1. and Paragraph 4.
We consider that the findings out in the Paragraph 9.1 and 9.2 are incorrect.
The penultimate sentence in this paragraph states None given. Paragraph 7.8 that our client’s statement is not a fair representation of what took place, is in itself unfair; no satisfactory reasons are given for reaching this important conclusion , from which other conclusions as to the breach of the Code are deemed to flow. ( please see for example our comments on paragraph 5.4 ).
8. We are pleased to note that you have taken into None given. account our submissions in relation to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to some degree. However we believe from an analysis of many cases which have considered this issue, the higher level of protection which the Convention affords to matters political and “quasi political“ would apply to the writings referred to in paragraph 9.2.
Whether the subject member or the monitoring officer or ethical standards officer will attend or be represented:
It is expected that Councillor Steve Reed will attend the hearing, with his solicitor.
The Investigating Officer is no longer employed by the London Borough of Southwark, and another officer from Southwark will attend to present the IO’s report.
Names of any witnesses who will be asked to give evidence:
No information was received from Councillor Steve Reed’s solicitor.
An outline of the proposed procedure for the hearing:
Procedural issues:
The Chair will:
• Ascertain whether both parties are present, and if they are accompanied by any representatives (counsel, a solicitor, or any other person they wish). SBE advice is that representation by a non-legal representative is subject to the agreement of the sub-committee. • Explain that the Sub-Committee may choose to adjourn the meeting and discuss procedural matters in private, as necessary. • Seek any comments from both parties (or their representatives) on the procedure. In particular, to carry out the following pre-hearing process, to:
- Consider any further views from the parties on publication of the investigation report and decide accordingly. - Consider any further views from the parties on whether the hearing or any parts of the hearing should be held in private.
The Sub-Committee will then consider any views, and agree the procedure to be followed. If the report is released, copies will be made available to those present, and subsequently published on the Council’s website.
Conduct of hearing:
This is set out in the SBE guidance and local hearing procedure documents already supplied to Councillor Reed’s solicitor and appended to the report for the hearing sub-committee meeting.
______