Memorandum by Herefordshire Council (STA
30)
HEREFORDSHIRE
1. Herefordshire is the second largest non-metropolitan
unitary authority in England. It has a population of 176,500;
reflecting its rural character, it is organised into 40 wards
with 238 parishes and 134 town and parish councils. There are
over 1200 town and parish councillors and 58 Herefordshire councillors.
2. The majority of the town and parish councillors
belong to the Herefordshire Association of Local Councils. This
has proved extremely useful in terms of promoting the Code locally,
providing training for town and parish councillors, and helping
us connect with town and parish councils.
THE HEREFORDSHIRE
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
3. The Committee was established in its
current form in 2003. It consists of two independent members,
two town and parish representatives, and two Herefordshire councillors
(the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council). The Committee
is chaired by an independent member.
THE LOCAL
SITUATION
4. The introduction of the National Code
of Conduct in 2001 before the local elections in May 2003 was
seen by many as changing the rules mid-term. There was considerable
resistance in Herefordshire, which was covered in the national
media as well as locally, and which was a major challenge for
us in our first few months of work. As the table shows, things
are a little calmer now.
| Year | No. of Complaints
| SBE Referrals to Ethical Standards Officer
| Adjudication Panel Tribunal Outcome
|
| 2002 | 29 | 15
| 13 sanctions ranging from disqualification to reprimand.
|
| 2003 | 49 | 12
| No penalties |
| 2004 (to date) | 16 | 3
| Not applicable |
| | |
|
The Standards Board for England— what's gone well?
5. Since the formation of the SBE our Chairman and our
Monitoring Officer have had frequent contacts with the Chairman
and with the Chief Executive and other senior staff of the SBE.
They have been accessible, positive and helpful. We feel that
the SBE has a sharp focus on its task, a professional approach,
and good prioritisation. But it is also our impression that it
has to cope with difficulties not of its own making, which we
list in the next section.
6. The SBE has made a real contribution to awareness
and training. Its website is well-designed and informative. The
case review material is excellent. The SBE Annual Conferences
have been a valuable means of supporting standards committees
across the country, sharing experience, and providing current
awareness. The Board has also been effective in supporting local
and regional events, and in providing speakers and promotional
material. Although we have taken a local initiative in arranging
joint training days with neighbouring authorities, we think that
the SBE might arrange workshops, perhaps on a regional basis,
for general training and especially to prepare for the demanding
process of local determinations.
The Standards Board for England— what hasn't gone so
well?
7. The Board is not to blame for much of what follows,
but the factors listed below have provided a difficult context
for its work.
8. The regulatory regime is seen by many as too detailed
and bureaucratic, especially at town and parish level . This
is still a source of difficulty; there was a loss of town and
parish councillors in Herefordshire following the introduction
of the Code.
9. Regulations needed for the full operation
of the system have appeared many months late, which has
contributed to a feeling of uncertainty, and has not helped the
credibility of the system.
10. There is an insufficient element of local handling
and filtering, which has increased the burden on the SBE.
We welcome the regulations empowering standards committees to
conduct local hearings, and we hope that the SBE will refer as
many cases as possible for local determination. We also welcome
the regulations allowing monitoring officers to carry out local
investigations. It is regrettable that both S.I.s appeared so
late.
11. Even with these changes, all complaints have to pass
through the Board's machinery. We would like to see the local
level as the default setting, with complaints initially considered
by standards committees, who would be able to refer the more serious
cases to the SBE. A means of ensuring consistency and avoiding
perverse local decisions would be needed, but we do not think
this requires much ingenuity. (We note that the Joint Committee
on the draft Bill which became the Local Government Act 2000 recommended
(paragraph 239 (iii)) that a complaint should be considered first
by the local standards committee.)
12. The statutory independence of Ethical Standards
Officers underpins their independent judgments, but in practice
also means that administratively they appear "not under command",
which may not help the SBE to manage its resources.
13. More seriously, if an ESO finds a breach of the Code
but does not refer the case to Tribunal, the ruling is a matter
of public record (and published on the website), which may damage
a councillor's reputation but where he or she is allowed no challenge
or defence—we think in contravention of natural justice.
A recent local example was where a builder took part in a general
discussion about planning legislation without declaring the fact
that he was a builder. He was found (by the ESO alone) to have
breached the Code by not declaring a personal interest, and that
judgment remains on the public record.
14. The process of investigation leaves something
to be desired. The first a prominent Herefordshire councillor
knew of a recent complaint against him was when he received a
letter saying that it would not be proceeded with. Conversely,
we are aware of cases in the County when it was from friends and
colleagues that councillors first heard that inquiries were being
made about them following a complaint. And if a complaint is referred
for investigation, councillors are told that they must keep the
matter confidential, which is often a cause of considerable stress.
These factors do not help the credibility of the system.
15. The time taken for investigations is much too
long. This is probably primarily a resource issue, but it
is causing real concern. Our first case referred for local determination
arises from a complaint made on 15 August 2003. The matter was
referred to us on 5th November 2004— more than fourteen
months later. The minimum times required between stages of
a local determination mean that we are
unlikely to be able to dispose of the case until late January
2005. This does not build confidence in the process.
16. As we noted above, several of these factors are
part of the regulatory framework; they are thus outside the Board's
control, but may make its task much harder.
17. There is one area where we would like to see the
Board being more proactive: in the issuing of national advice
on particular areas of difficulty. Current examples are whether
a councillor with a prejudicial interest in a planning application
may employ an agent when the application is considered by a planning
committee (the Richardson case); and the use of council
resources, especially the interpretation of the Local Government
Act 1986 as it affects the use of council IS/IT facilities to
disseminate party political material. The SBE has given its view
at our request; but proactive published advice would ensure consistency
of approach by standards committees country-wide.
CONCLUSION
18. We are well aware that Select Committees appreciate
concise submissions. This memorandum is therefore short, but we
would of course be delighted to expand upon it in oral evidence
if the Urban Affairs Sub-Committee so wished.
The Standards Committee of Herefordshire Council
November 2004
| 
