Memorandum by Susan Kembrey (STA 25)
I refer to the inquiry which the ODPM Committee
is carrying out into the role and effectiveness of the Standards
Board for England. I would make the following submissions:
There are a number of issues in connection with
procedures regarding complaints made to the Standards Board in
connection with potential breaches of the Code of Conduct which
have been raised before my Council's Standards Committee. These
have centred around complaints which are malicious and/or frivolous
in nature. These can be distressing to members who find themselves
the subject of a complaint which can take, currently, under the
Standards Board procedures a considerable length of time. For
example, I understand, the Board currently have a backlog which
they are attempting to redress with the use of additional resources
but existing complaints lodged with them have, in some cases,
been there for up to 12 months.
In September this issue of malicious/frivolous
complaints was raised at the National Standards Board Conference
when the Board confirmed they have introduced a sifting procedure
in order to try and deal with such complaints. This sifting procedure
examines multiple complaints emanating from the same complainant
in relation to the same member. It also looks at the nature of
that complaint in order to establish whether or not an investigation
should be undertaken. Mindful of the fact that the Board have
introduced its own mechanism for dealing with such complaints
it is still worth reinforcing the fact that malicious and/or vexatious
complaints are an issue and need a robust approach. This is something
which this inquiry should have regard to.
It is suggested that consideration be given
to the Standards Board for England being required to examine the
introduction of a costs penalty regime. For example, one similar
to that in use in Employment Tribunals could be considered.
In Employment Tribunals persons bringing claims
that the Employment Tribunal decides are "frivolous or vexatious"
may be subject to a limited award of costs. In the context of
Standards complaints case numbers now show that many claims have
been submitted (particularly at parish level) for reasons related
to either personal or employment disputes, or for politically
motivated reasons. Given councillors operate in a party political
arena, purely vexatious claims are always a danger. The absence
of any deterrent is an invitation to time-wasting and harassing
complaints which, despite a lack of substance, often generate
substantial media coverage. A proper study of possible deterrents
to such claims with a view to action would appear to be the only
way forward.
It has been suggested that a penalty should
be imposed on those who continue to make malicious/frivolous complaints
and this would mirror costs orders in other legal arenas. This
is certainly an issue for Councillors and a financial penalty
such as this may well act as a deterrent for those complaints
mentioned above.
In connection with referrals to the Board the
single issue which causes most concern is the delay experienced
in investigating complaints. As indicated previously this is distressing
for the Councillor concerned and is contrary to the principles
of natural justice. It is suggested that as a policy principle
the Board be required to examine its procedures for progressing
complaints and a strict time limit is set for their investigation.
This would then avoid leaving Councillors in a limbo situation
for what is often a considerable period of time.
The procedures for referrals back to Monitoring
Officers for determination by their Council's Standards Committee
appear time and cost intensive. The current system is in its infancy
but should the numbers of referrals be substantial the cost implication
for local authorities is potentially high. Costs will, in all
probability, substantially increase now that the second part of
the s66 Regulations made under The Local Government Act 2000 are
in force. This is something which the Committee should carefully
consider.
A significant issue which influences the number
of referrals and also their nature is the "whistle-blowing"
obligation under the Code of Conduct which places an obligation
on a Councillor to report to the Standards Board another Councillor
who is believed to be in breach of the Code. This may lead to
minor code infringements being reported which in many cases the
Standards Board may not decide to investigate. It is suggested
that the onus currently placed upon Councillors as encapsulated
in the Code of Conduct needs examination/revision.
The recent National Standards Board Conference
gave examples of cases reported to the National Standards Board
where it was decided that no further action be taken. It was difficult
to understand the Board's rationale in some cases where a clear
and sometimes significant infringement of the Code had been reported.
It is suggested that there needs to consistency in their decision
making and clear and concise criteria for those cases which go
forward for investigation. The current system leaves members and
Monitoring Officers in a difficult position as members particularly
are bound to report potential breaches of the Code although Monitoring
Officers may well know from their own experience that the Standards
Board has decided upon no further action in similar cases reported.
It is suggested therefore that the current system is confusing,
inconsistent and at times illogical.
A significant issue is the Local Authority's
Monitoring Officer's responsibility for Parish Councils within
its area. To-date, a large number of complaints have centred around
the conduct of councillors at Parish level. Initially, some parish
members viewed the Code of Conduct as an imposition and were reluctant
to comply. This led to an initial influx of complaints to the
Standards Board. The large number of Parish Councils, as compared
with other local authorities, means that there is always a likelihood
of a greater number of complaints being lodged with the Standards
Board for England in connection with parish councillors. The consequence
of this for the upper tier authorities which conduct the complaint
process is an increase in terms of time and cost involvement,
none of which is rechargeable to the Parish concerned. This responsibility
was transferred to the local authorities with no additional funding.
The s66 Regulations place additional responsibilities on Monitoring
Officers. These responsibilities are likely to increase now that
the second part of these Regulations are in force. This will require
additional resources. It is suggested the Committee consider the
implications of this, in order to establish whether funding can
be accessed for the responsibilities taken on in connection with
Parishes, either via direct Government funding or, preferably,
via some recharge regime allowing the upper tier local authority
to claim back its costs from the Parish.
If I can be of further assistance or elaborate
further on any of the points raised above, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Yours sincerely
S Kembrey
| 
