In April 2019 a petition, signed by over 1100 City residents, went before the Court of Common Council, expressing lack of confidence in the City’s Standards regime. The wording and background information are below.
On 24 May the new chair of the Standards Committee wrote to all petitioners arguing that they had misunderstood. See her letter here
On 28 May the chairs of the Barbican Association and Golden Lane Residents Association responded. See their letter: Response to chair of standards committee
The Chair of the Standards Committee responded on 29 May: Further response from chair of standards to residents and Graeme Harrower, a supportive common councilman from a business ward, wrote about the affair to the Court of Common Council on 30 May: Email from Graeme Harrower CC 30 May
On 7 June Mark Bostock, a councillor of Cripplegate ward, a residential ward, submitted an application for a dispensation. His request is here
On 3 July a Dispensations subcommittee refused the request. A full account of the meeting is here
Cllr Mark Bostock commented: “I was elected as a councillor to represent my fellow residents on matters that affect us. I now find that I am expected to seek permission continuously from this standards committee, effectively a third party, to do so. This situation is not acceptable.”
Cllr Pearson, another Cripplegate councillor, whose treatment by the Standards Committee, triggered the initial dismay among residents, commented: “Yet again the City Corporation, acting through three members of its standards committee, has tried to control how resident councillors (like me) act on behalf of their constituents. This simply isn’t democracy.”
Cllr Harrower, from a business ward and a critic of the way the Standards Committee operates: commented:
“The City Corporation must be unique among local authorities in its dismissive attitude towards its residents. This attitude is evidenced in many ways, including its “standards” regime being used to deny residents the same level of democratic representation as in other local authorities. The City Corporation is also unique in having most of its members elected by business votes – unnecessarily, because the absence of a business vote system has not prevented business from flourishing in Canary Wharf, or anywhere else in the UK or abroad. The question naturally arises as to whether a local authority that primarily serves private commercial interests (which have the means to represent themselves) at the expense of its residents (who, as anywhere, need effective representation from their councillors) should continue to have the powers of a public authority. The question isn’t new, but the answer is becoming overdue.”
On 25 July Cllr Graeme Harrower (member for the business ward of Bassishaw) wrote to the Court of Common Council outlining the unanswered points about the current standards regime. You can read his email here
The Standards Committee has arranged an additional meeting in September at the request of some of the newer members. This takes place at 11.30 on 6 September in the Guildhall (West entrance reception). Any resident can attend the meeting to observe it.
On 9 August the chairs of the BA and the Golden Lane Estate Residents Association therefore wrote to the Standards Committee urging them to listen to residents’ complaints about the policy and explaining why they consider it continues to disenfranchise the residents of the City of London. Read their letter here: Letter to standards committee 9 August 2019
The Standards Committee met again on 6 September at the request of some of its newer members. No decisions were made. An account of the meeting by Cllr Graeme Harrower is here, together with his emails to the committee and other members explaining why the current policy does not resolve the problem, and the system of applying for one off dispensations doesn’t take into account the fact that agendas only appear a few days before the meeting and so doesn’t allow for applications to be made.
The next meeting of the Standards Committee is on 4 October, 11 am, in the Guildhall. A paper responding to the petition and the ward resolutions is expected at that meeting.
On 4 October the Standards Committee met to consider a paper on the dispensations policy. The committee remained divided on whether to allow members to apply for general dispensations to speak and vote – and will therefore revisit the subject at its next meeting, on 24 January 2020. The committee did decide to ask other relevant committees in the City to seek to repeal section 618 of the Housing Act 1985 (which prevents City resident members with an interest in property (their house/flat) from voting on housing matters). It also refused four applications for “general” dispensations that had first been made four months ago and were resubmitted.
31 October. An election in Aldersgate ward led to correspondence between the chair BA and the chair of the Standards committee. See the correspondence: Disenfranchisement again
In November a meeting of the Dispensations Subcommittee of the Standards Committee was held to consider three applications from resident councillors for general dispensations to speak and vote. The outcome of the meeting was that the subcommittee referred decisions on these three applications back to the Standards Committee at its next meeting on 24 January at 11 am. A Golden Lane resident present at the meeting provides an account of what went on at the meeting, and a recording of it here
Background to the petition
“City of London Corporation caught in ‘gagging’ row after referring resident councillor to City of London Police”
“City of London Corporation chiefs seek rule change after ‘gagging’ row”
We, the undersigned residents of the City of London, declare that we have no confidence in the City Corporation’s current “standards” policy and practice.
We petition the Court of Common Council to make immediate and fundamental reforms so that:
– our elected representatives are free to speak and vote on our behalf, including on matters in which they have a declared interest (unless the matter uniquely or especially affects them), so that we have the same level of representation as residents of other local authorities; and
– our elected representatives do not feel intimidated into not speaking or voting on matters that affect us because they fear referral by the Corporation to a complaints process that has proved to be not fit for purpose – or worse, referral to the police -simply because they have a declared interest in a matter, even though they can derive no financial benefit from it.