Memorandum by the South Tyneside Council
Standards Committee (STA 28)
I have been requested to make submissions to
your inquiry on behalf of the Standards Committee of South Tyneside
Council. Both the Independent Chair of the Committee (Mr Bill
Darling) and I are willing to attend before you to expand upon
the points made in this letter, should you wish. I am the Council's
Monitoring Officer.
South Tyneside Council established a Standards
Committee in advance of the legal requirement to do so and an
independent person has always chaired it. The vice-chair is also
an independent person. Initially, the chair and monitoring officer
with the support of the Chief Executive were frequently able to
address alleged issues of misconduct by members in a speedy, informal
and effective manner internally. The prospect of referral to the
Standards Committee was a useful incentive for members to co-operate.
The arrangements under the Local Government
Act 2000 have introduced a central national bureaucracy that provides
uncertainty and a disincentive on being able to deal with matters
locally in such an effective manner. Overall there is no great
evidence of widespread misconduct in local government. There are
a number of small issues that can often be addressed by training,
guidance, members seeking advice, or, where there may have been
a breach, informal warning or an apology. Clarity about the ability
to deal with the matters locally and informally is needed. The
manner in which the 2000 Act has been implemented causes difficulties.
The basic problem is that all complaints must
be made initially to the Standards Board for England.
It would be preferable if all complaints were
made locally to the monitoring officer. The monitoring officer
could then decide whether the matter could be dealt with informally
and resolved, whether it should be investigated locally and referred
to the standards committee, or whether the matter was of sufficient
seriousness to warrant referral to the Standards Board. If the
complainant were dissatisfied with the monitoring officer's approach,
he/she could have a right to request the Standards Board to review
the matter and direct the monitoring officer to refer the matter
to the Standards Board for investigation. This would lead to local
determination, local justice and self-regulation but under the
supervision of the Standards Board for England.
A further problem with the current system is
that there may be delay before the member or monitoring officer
is made aware of the complaint. If the Standards Board decides
that the matter does not warrant investigation, the complainant
has no other course of action. But, while it may be that such
a complaint does not warrant full investigation under the 2000
Act framework, it might be an issue that could have been usefully
addressed informally at a local level. Once the Standards Board
has decided that it does not warrant investigation, it is very
difficult after the delay for the matter then to be taken up locally.
There has been an example locally where the then monitoring officer
decided that a matter warranted reference to the Standards Board
for England. The Standards Board decided that there had been no
breach of the code. While the Monitoring Officer felt that the
matter did warrant some action, he was not able to take the matter
further in the light of the Board's decision.
While the 2000 Act places various roles and
responsibilities on standards committees, once the ethical framework
has been fully implemented there is in reality little for the
committees to do on a day to day basis. This together with the
delay in implementing the regulations for local determinations
and investigations has led to a degree of frustration—waiting
for matters to be referred and hesitating to become involved in
specific matters in case it affects the ability of the committee
to carry out its quasi-judicial role should a matter result in
a formal complaint.
We recognise that the Standards Board has to
operate within the framework prescribed by Parliament. We welcome
their intention to review the code of conduct because we feel
that the effect of the code of conduct is disproportionate to
the benefits. We welcome the attempts of the Standards Board to
give guidance on what is a complex code, which again is not their
fault, and their publications and training sessions are admirable.
In conclusion, the main change that our Standards
Committee would suggest is a move to complaints initially being
dealt with locally under the supervision of the Standards Board
for England.
Yours sincerely
Brian T Scott
Solicitor, Head of Corporate Governance
November 2004
| 
