Just a quick question about how other organisations deal with conflicts of interest.

Due to recruitment issues, our organisation is temporarily under the managment of a body whose decisions we regularly assist our clients to challange. Our organisations have always been closely linked but we have never been directly under their management as we are now.

It is clear to my mind that there is massive potential for conflict of interest, but hasn't there always been? How close is too close, and how do others manage such situations?

You might find this interesting:

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=134436&command=displayContent&sourceNode=134094&contentPK=17938278&folderPk=78480&pNodeId=133993

Sarah Roy recently posted again to rightsnet about the outcome of the case but that post appears to also have vanished.

In a grown-up organisation it is possible to minimise the potential conflict of interest by agreeing a clear written protocol which enables advisers to have freedom of action as advocates. Either way, the service's consumers need to know when any conflict of interest may arise.

Thanks. I had heard about this case but hadn't realised it had got so weird!

Thankfully the organisations involved here are happy for us to look into issues which might affect the quality of our service to our clients (in fact I think that's what they pay us for!)
So I'm just seeking other opinions as to whether there's any need to suggest changing our practice until things are back to normal.

There was a commissioner's decision in 2003 (I cannot rember the reference) concerning a question on whether there was a vaild HB supersession where Glasgow Council's Welfare Rights Team represented the claimant and Mr Sutherland, Advocate, instructed by their solicitors represented the Council.

I don't see any problems in theory but public perception has to be carefully considered. Maybe one of the team could give further info' on how it works for them.

Hello

With the issue at Sheffield Hallam, I think it depends upon how deep the potential for conflict goes, but it's impact is lessened somewhat by it being temporary (if indeed it is and they aren't trying to pull the wool over your eyes) and other factors such as it being more directly controlled by its service-users. Neil is right in the sense that as long as the new arrangements are not hidden, the possibility of conflict of interest is pro-actively brought to the attention of students to ensure they are able to make an informed choice about whether to trust/go with SHU given the individual circumstances of their case, and that a clear & transparent agreement (with a challengable/appealable process that includes the ability to scrutinise the entire advice-giving process) is put in place for this interim period then it may still be able to work - but it'll be better when you can get back to normal! I think it's important that Hallam students advice centre is responsible to it's management committee which is surely made up of members/students who are also it's service users. In this case, the service users will have far greater control over the service than the citizen's of Nottingham have over their services. Elections only come round every 4 or 5 years and even then, line-management decisions like the one made in Nottingham still happen without imput from the people using the service and against the wishes of the staff. My advice to you is to engage as much as possible with them as well as your members, welcome their willingness to discuss the important issues and never be frightened to challenge them if you feel compromised.

I think it was Neil Bateman who was the consultant responsible for carrying out the the review of advice services in Nottingham City, before the City Council's Welfare Rights Service was taken over by Housing Benefit and the staff sworn to secrecy about it... am I right, Neil ? I'll be interested to see (amongst other things) what effect this change will have upon other advice services in the City. If claimants are no longer able to obtain confidential and impartial advice from their local authority's service then it could potentially put a great strain on the limited and dwindling resources of the small numbers of voluntary sector services in the city who will be left to pick up the work for claimants who have HB issues - which is almost all of them at some point.

Sarah

sarah.roy@virgin.net

Just to set the record straight:

The report about the review of advice services in Nottingham is on the City council's website and has been for a considerable time:

www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/sswr_advice_review_nottinghamshire.pdf

As you can see, the issue of who line manages the WR service was not explored and subsequent events which took place some considerable time after the report are unconnected with that review and it would be wrong to suggest any connection. We had no discussions at all about the changes in line management - just wasn't on the agenda.

I know that Neil - I wasn't implying that this was anything to do with you!! I was working there at the time and it was ages before this change took effect. You were great and I know for sure that you were not told about this - and to be fair to all, it wouldn't even have been secretly on the cards at the time. I was just interested in your thoughts about the impact of the change, since the review. I wouldn't insult you by implying you were implicated!! :-/ Sorry if it looked that way...

Sarah

Bizarre. When I looked at the newspapers website t'other day, 21 readers had commented on that story - most of them condemning the council in - shall we say robust? - terms. Have these comments been removed at Nottingham Council's instigation too, I wonder.

The follow-up story about the campaign to hush things up is also worth a look !

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133965&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133948&contentPK=17982861&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

Hi Gerry - Rightsnet and myself were threatened with legal action from the City Council last year after I made a posting about the issue on this website. The posting was subsequently removed due to the threats and the City Council sacked me at the end of May over the issue. As a concerned member of the public and a committed welfare rights worker I went to the press. Benefits and Work published a great article on the story last week but before they did so they were also threatened by the city council who said they would use 'necessary force' against them. It didn't deter Steve publishing the article as that's what he's there for. Interestingly, Nottingham City Council have not made any such threats to the Evening Post (with it's own legal team) and so the public comments are allowed to stay put. Rightsnet removed my recently posted update on the story this week, saying "while we think that its appropriate to publish general discussions on issues relating to the independence of welfare rights advice we're not in a position to host information about a specific case of this kind".

I think we are having a discussion about the issue now - I don't think I'm actually barred from talking about what happened at Nottingham if people ask. So, thank you for asking about this!

Sarah

sarah.roy@virgin.net

Hi Sarah

I just find it curious that earlier in the week when I first read the NEP article on their website, following the link in your previous post, there were 21 readers' comments; today the page invites me to be the first to comment.

Given the nature of the subject I can't help wondering why, or at whose prompting, those 21 (or maybe more?) comments were removed from the website.

Sorry - see what's happened now. They've amalgamated the comments and placed with the follow-up article. Should've checked that first...

I think the comments come and go sometimes, or it appears that they do for some techy reason I dont understand. They are not visible when the page is being updated by the NEP (for eample when some pople hit send, the message ends up appearing a few times rather than just once and then the people at NEP have to tidy them up). The other thing that sometimes happens is that the comments on other stories appear linked to the wrong story, temporarily, so it can appear that either the people reading the story didn't quite get it or that there were no comments.

I'm very suspicious of absolutely everything to do with this whole saga because it's the most weird situation... well I wont get started again... but this time I know for sure the Post have not heard a squeak out of the council. They have in fact been trying very hard to get them to comment on the story but simply receive faxed messages saying "the case is subject to appeal proceedings and it would be inappropriate to comment".

But they do have a lot to say to anyone without their own legal team, such as threats to use 'necesary force' (does this mean physical violence?), taking 'appropriate legal action' (which probably just means writing threatening letters) snd 'seeking an injunction in the high court'. I'm expecting to wake up with my fingers and tongue on my pillow one morning. Well, like Steve from BAW says, it is very Rambo-like.

Sarah

sarah.roy@virgin.net

More news...

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133965&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133948&contentPK=18015561&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2007/08/377584.html

Please feel free to post a comment.

If you have any stories of your own about issues with confidentiality, impartiality, conflict of interest, being taken over by the Inland Revenue, University or the Jobcentre, etc, please let me know cos I'm collecting stuff. It'll all be treated in the strictest confidence...

Sorry to have interrupted. Can we carry on the discussion about impartiality and good quality advice please now? I want to hear about this. I think it's a discussion we need to have. If we can't have it here, then it's a sorry state of affairs really. From the very few council Welfare Rights Services that are managed by HB, I'd be very interested if you would show and tell how the council have tried to make this work for them, how it was introduced, what issues there have been, whether they have ever tried to stop you doing your job,etc. Has anyone ever represented against their own department at a HB appeal (and if so please let me know what on earth happened there!)? What does it say on your consent forms about confidentiality/not sharing with benefits providers, etc. What is the future of the independent voluntary sector? Does this kind of stuff weaken or strengthen it? If you work in the voluntary sector, what do you think? Are you picking up the work for a council service with a bad reputation? At what point/why would people be persuaded to keep their mouth shut by management if they thought something awful was happening? Does anyone really care any more about Welfare Rights issues or is it just a career... an easy entry option into advice work or other areas of law? What makes a good welfare rights worker and a good service? Come on!

Sarah

sarah.roy@virgin.net