Title

Claire Fox has no regrets at seeing the back of the Standards Board for England – or Standards for England, as it calls itself – but worries that new initiatives could bring in another layer of bureaucracy Whatever one thinks of the coalition government's performance so far, I can't have been alone in cheering at the abolition of the Standards Board for England watchdog. Even better, the decision to end the hated ‘predetermination rules' which have stopped councillors speaking and voting on issues that they have campaigned around. "Might we now see some passion return to council chambers? God knows, with so many cuts on the horizon, clashing political views actually matter. We could do with some decent rows." Well done to [CLG secretary] Eric Pickles for scrapping both. They have, in different ways, gagged local politicians and sanitised local government. Standards for England – as it calls itself– always implied that councillors' behaviour was invariably in need of policing by unelected bureaucrats. It was as if local politicians were naughty children who couldn't be left alone without supervision. Remember that dreadful and insulting leaflet Councillors behaving badly? The board's very existence told the public that anyone standing for election should automatically fall under suspicion as potentially untrustworthy, and whose behaviour needed to be monitored and reigned in. It also signalled that ‘behaviour' was the key standard voters should use in assessing politicians, rather than their political principles. Complaints often focused on inappropriate/offensive language, usually uttered in the midst of heated political arguments. Demonising lively banter as verbal ‘abuse' inadvertently censored opinionated exchanges, rendering municipal debate anodyne, dull and bland. Might we now see some passion return to council chambers? God knows, with so many cuts on the horizon, clashing political views actually matter. We could do with some decent rows. Predetermination regulations were always a disgrace, discouraging politicians from voicing strong opinions. Denying voting rights to anyone who had already made their minds up about local issues – in my view, a necessary requirement of any politician worth their salt – inevitably implied that ‘good' politicians were those with no strong views. This was mangerialism at its worst, and no doubt put off anyone with deeply-held ideals from even standing for office. Of course, there is one remaining problem. Now that councillors are formally free to argue robustly in public, do many of them have anything interesting to say? Watch this space to see if that dreaded breed of pragmatic, ideology-lite clones can discover some deeply-held opinions and become real politicians. While ministers deserve congratulations on rescinding these invidious fetters on elected members' freedom, I fear they are introducing new shackles, in the name of transparency. Mr Pickles says councils will be more accountable and trusted when senior salaries, expenses and minutes of meetings are put online, and council decisions and processes are publicly scrutinised. This implies that anything which happens away from the public gaze is inevitably shady. Surely, by suggesting that closed doors equates to wrongdoing, we are as much in danger of institutionalising distrust as the Standards Board ever did. It is also important for councils to defend privacy, not just as a principle but as an important operating tool for decision-making. Is putting the minutes of meetings online really going to encourage more openness? Or might it mean that everyone watches what they say? Every organisation needs the space for private, off-the-record discussions. It enables people to experiment with different options by saying the unsayable out loud, and debating a range of radical choices. If officers and councillors feel their words will be taken out of context and used against them, we can expect a self-censored, safe attitude to problem-solving – hardly a recipe for bold and decisive leadership. Throwing open council books and publishing details of spending and contracts set at £500 seem equally wrong-headed. It not only threatens business confidentiality by revealing companies' charges to rivals, it will likely force managers into debilitating dithering over minor expenditure decisions, just in case they are seen as inappropriate. The Government seems to think the public relish being unleashed as ‘an army of armchair auditors'. Believe me, life's too short for most of us. As citizens, we need to trust experienced, paid professionals to make judgments on our behalf, not be bothered by number-crunching detail allegedly to reassure us. The spiralling demands to reveal more to assuage mistrust, actually threaten to feed suspicion, while paralysing decision-making and breeding self-censorship. So, Mr Pickles, I am lobbying you to allow officials to be judged in terms of their results rather than auditing the processes they follow, and to judge politicians on what they argue in public rather than what they mull over in private. If the world is better without the quangos and daft rules you are usefully throwing on the bonfire, it would be even better if you dropped your relentless transparency drive, and set councils free to get on with their job. Claire Fox is director of the Institute of Ideas

Title

WHITEHALL

Goodbye Standards Board…you won't be missed at all

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING