Lawyers’ breakfast There must be many lawyers who will have been tempted to name their new yachts HMS Islington, their new Docklands flats ‘Dunroamin – round Islington’ and their holiday villas ‘Chez Islington’, following the marathon Standards Board inquiry into the London borough of that name. Unfortunately, while m’learned friends involved in the long-running saga may have done nicely out of the inquiry, the same cannot be said for the unfortunate ‘defendants’ involved. The cost of protecting their reputations has been £350,000 for the councillors, and £134,000 for the chief executive, Helen Bailey. The £650,000 bill incurred by the Standards Board has, of course, been picked up by the taxpayer. But, although the Islington names were exonerated and the board later apologised, their own costs remain to be paid. The council rightly believes it should not be up to the councillors or Ms Bailey to dip into their own pockets, and is able to use a power to reimburse members. Nor, however, does it feel the council taxpayer should pick up the tab, although it has no choice. If it hadn’t been so shortsighted, the council could have put the costs on its own insurance. Unfortunately, it only decided to take this out after the inquiry began, almost three years ago, meaning any legal costs associated with the board’s investigation were excluded. So, while the cover of up to £50,000 for any one councillor up to a maximum of £500,000 in one year will make good any future claims, it won’t cover this one. There are two conclusions from this costly legal whammy. One is that, as a matter of course, local authorities should ensure their members and officers are covered for the costs of any litigation. Even if it is their fault, there is no reason why a member or officer should have to cover their own costs since the litigation arises from their duties on the council, right or wrong. Second, in the particular case of Islington, the cost should come from central funds. It is highly unlikely there will be another inquiry like it again and it is unfair that local taxpayers should see their services suffer as a result.
