Below is the full text of the speech given to the House of Commons by Isle of Wight MP, Andrew Turner today.
Minister, I would like to highlight a case where the Standards Board for England has been investigating six councillors on the Isle of Wight. So far it has taken more than a year, with no end yet in sight.
In September 2007 allegations were referred to the Standards Board that the conduct of a number of Island councillors fell below the standards expected. There were no allegations of criminal activity. The complaints related to a planning application made by one of the councillors. I will not go into the substance of the allegations; they are still being investigated. However, the process has been unduly lengthy and, therefore, harrowing for those involved. The councillors involved are Anne Bishop, Vanessa Churchman, Patrick Joyce, Lora Peacey-Wilcox, Andy Sutton and Brian Mosdell.
Sadly, one of those accused, Brian Mosdell, died 13 days ago. I am attending his funeral tomorrow. The allegations against all six councillors were still outstanding. I do not suggest that this situation caused Brian’s death. But the stress and worry he suffered as a result of the process was considerable, and in the eyes of many people may have hastened it.
I would like to put on record my absolute conviction that Brian was an honest and honourable man and a good local councillor. My sincere condolences go out to his family and friends.
It is an absolute disgrace that the Standards Board did not reach a conclusion on this matter prior to his death; they knew he was seriously ill.
Everyone involved accepts the need for due process to be followed. Everyone understands the need for a thorough investigation. But I wish the Standards Board really understood how hard and painful this process becomes, rather than merely paying lip-service to the idea. For instance, it would help if they kept the promises they made.
Let me summarise what has happened so far. After the original complaint was made in September 2007, initial investigations took place. In February 2008, it was said that a draft report of the findings should be ready within 6 weeks. This could have led to a final report being issued in April. The case would then have been completed within the six month target of the Standards Board. This failed to happen.
Even at that time, Melanie Carter, the solicitor acting for five of the accused, registered her dismay at the length of time the investigation was taking.
On 27th February, some eight months ago, Miss Carter outlined the intolerable burden this investigation was placing upon her clients. She pointed out that they had been removed from positions of responsibility in the Council. They were subject to politically motivated attacks reported in the local media. She also informed the Standards Board that some of her clients were suffering from serious health problems. Another client was trying to deal with the death of her partner, which had happened during the investigation.
On 14th March, Tim Bailey, the investigator on the case advised that a draft report was to be considered ‘next week’. This didn’t happen. On 9th April Miss Carter was told that Mr Bailey had left the Standards Board. A new investigator was being allocated, but she is ‘currently away from the office and’ – staggeringly – ‘her return date is unknown’.
On the 10th April, in response, Miss Carter outlined again the real human and health costs the delay was having on her clients. In my view quite rightly, she pointed out that these issues really ought to be taken into account and the case given priority.
It appeared then that the Standards Board had listened to her plea. On 17th April the Director of Casework, Hazel Salisbury, wrote confirming that the new investigator would ‘notify you of the outcome of the investigation within ten working days’. That promise was of course not kept.
On 30th April only an update arrived from Hazel Salisbury. She said that the case was receiving ‘top priority’. It clearly wasn’t. She also said that the Board aimed to complete even complex cases within six months. Well, they had already missed that target. She wrote again on 8th May saying that she hoped to be able to issue draft reports for comment by mid-July. On 26th June the new investigator Natalie Birtle, confirmed this was still on schedule.
On 15th July, Hazel Salisbury seems to have changed her role from ‘Casework Director’ to ‘Ethical Standards Officer’. She wrote to say that significant new evidence had been received. She said she needed ‘further oral evidence’. Miss Carter pointed out that at this late stage, the delays were such that this may constitute a breach under article 6 of the Human Rights Act. This assures the right to a fair trial within a reasonable period. Those involved would face questions about matters long ago. The passage of time would lead to memories fading.
It was confirmed that the new evidence did not affect the case against at least some of those accused. The cases against each of them are different. Miss Carter urged that the cases not affected by this new evidence should be brought to a conclusion.
On the 10th October, some three months later, Hazel Salisbury (who has now changed back, from being an ‘Ethical Standards Officer’ to ‘Director of Casework’) claimed she had considered severing the cases ‘at every stage’. However, she now says that she has recently taken legal advice and finally concedes that ‘if it is possible to conclude any of the investigations earlier then I will do so’. It is a great pity that she seems not to have looked into this more thoroughly before. She had certainly been encouraged to do so in July.
The most worrying aspect is that, in the same letter, she says that yet again, she has received in two telephone calls ‘further information’ relevant to the case. Yet more interviews will be needed.
At least one of the councillors has received a letter stating that the investigators will visit the Island on 19 or 20th November. He is away at that time. There was no discussion about fixing a convenient date. No reason why a further interview is needed has been given. The Councillor has not yet even received transcripts of the interview he gave on 1st August. Is this really the way a serious investigation should be conducted?
Disgracefully, there is still no timescale, even a provisional one, as to when this case might reach a final conclusion.
Minister, the behaviour and attitude of the Standards Board throughout this case has been reprehensible. The investigation has been subject to wholly unacceptable delays. They have failed to communicate in a timely fashion with those being investigated. They have failed to consider properly, severance of the different cases.
There is another basic injustice here. The Standards Board initially failed to meet their target of six months. The files have therefore still been open when ‘new evidence’ materialized, ten months and thirteen months into the investigation. With the passage of time, it becomes harder for those involved to have accurate recall of conversations, meetings and events which may clear their names.
In criminal cases an accuser must stand up in open court and face the person they are accusing. It is a basic common law right to hear in full the evidence against you. The original allegations made to the Standards Board were clear and attributable. Names, dates and details were provided. Yet in accepting this late evidence, where, we must remember, no criminal activity is alleged, the identity of the accusers is being kept secret by the Standards Board. I challenge those who have submitted late evidence, hiding behind anonymity, to have the courage to stand up and be counted in public.
Without knowing the source of this new material, it is hard not to reach the conclusion that the allegations may be motivated by political purposes, rather than any desire to reach the truth or see justice done. Without knowing who is making these accusations, my constituents have no opportunity to question motives or integrity.
The timing now may affect the outcome of the local elections. This flawed and iniquitous procedure may fundamentally undermine our democratic process. Minister, you and I understand that selection of candidates does not take place in the days before an election, but months ahead, I am not sure that Ethical Standards Officers do.
I should like to turn now to the very considerable financial costs. Five councillors applied for indemnity against legal costs. Four of them were granted it, subject to them being cleared. In January, East Hampshire District Council Standards Committee was asked to examine the initial evidence to judge whether indemnity should be granted. They made their decision in two weeks. What on earth is taking the Standards Board for England so long?
The legal costs have mounted as the case has progressed. One of the councillors has already paid more than £14,000 pounds in fees, but can simply no longer afford to take proper legal advice. The others owe various amounts, currently up to £8,000 and still rising, Disgracefully, the Tribunal that may eventually hear this case has no power to award costs against the Standards Board.
Minister, I have supported a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham, I believe that she will reach the same conclusions as I have about the way in which this case has been handled. But I felt it important that I bring this case into the public domain. And also that you should hear personally about the very real suffering this case has caused.
The Chief Executive of the Standards Board, Glenys Stacey, wrote to me recently. She says that once these investigations are complete, she intends to ‘review our procedure with a view to seeking improvement in the future’. Minister, you may remember the case against the five Islington Councillors. All were acquitted after a two year process. The outcome of that investigation was a review. Has nothing been learned?
Whilst I accept that is very important for the Standards Board to review this investigation, you will understand how little comfort this gives. Cllrs. Bishop, Churchman, Joyce, Peacey-Wilcox, and Sutton are suffering still. It is painful to the family and friends of Brian Mosdell.
Minister, all of these councillors are decent, honest people who work hard for their local communities. The very worst the guilty of – and I emphasize ‘the worst’ – is an error of judgement. They do not deserve to have been treated this way.
The Standards Board have now ‘dropped the case’ against Cllr. Mosdell. Brian has died, the opportunity for him and indeed for everyone else to know that his name was cleared has gone. That is very, very sad and a travesty of justice.
