Issues for Secondary Legislation:

Herefordshire Standards Committee Response:

All chairs of committees to be independent and committees to include independent members who reflect a balance of experience

The wording “who reflect a balance of experience” is too misleading and vague and should be deleted.  Noted that the suggestion is not to have a majority of independent members.  The reasoning behind this is said to be to ensure local ownership.  It would be unusual and unlikely to appoint anyone from outside the authority’s area, however. 

Monitoring/reporting requirements for standards committees, so the Standards Board can check on progress

For a considerable time, the Herefordshire Standards Committee has been involved in decision-making within the conduct regime, and has gained significant experience in holding hearings.  The Chairman would draw on this when contributing to the Standards Board Group. 

Issues for Primary Legislation:

Herefordshire Standards Committee Response:

Initial assessment of all allegations of misconduct to be undertaken by standards committees, rather than the Standards Board

Agreed.  Standards Committees are in the best position to decipher which complaints might be vexatious or trivial, because they have the advantage of local knowledge.  This also has implications for the Herefordshire Standards Committee’s membership.  For example, there might be merit in having three Parish and Town Council Representatives; one from each of the three HALC area committees.  This would provide greater balance, particularly at hearings where a member is exempted from attending because of a prejudicial interest.  If Standards Committees had increased involvement in the filtration process, there might be greater resource implications, and a possible need to create a divide between those involved in the initial assessment and the actual hearing.  Again, it might be necessary to increase the Committee membership and operate a smaller panel for hearings.  The Standards Committee will explore these issues at a future meeting. 

Local monitoring officers to investigate most cases, and standards committees to determine most cases

Due to the need to keep the investigation (and therefore the investigator) separate from the hearing, there might be considerable resource implications over and above the net increase in work generated by the proposals.  Members felt that there should be no bar to the initial assessor, and that the more detailed assessment could be done by the same person to avoid overstretching the local authority.  In addition, paragraph 31 of the report suggests combining standards committees.  Members felt this would be unworkable because it would take away local ownership and would increase the need for members to travel long distances. 

The Board only to investigate the most serious cases.  The Board’s role to be redefined as supporting, monitoring and overseeing authorities’ performance in dealing with allegations.

The SBE needs to take the lead on, and monitor, authorities’ best practice in addition to the issues mentioned. 

Intervention powers for the Board when they consider committees are not operating effectively. 

More information is required on this proposal, and members would prefer to see the draft legislation before commenting.  Members also question what actual powers the SBE would have if not defined through legislation. 

New provisions providing powers for standards committees to impose higher penalties to support the need to address the most serious cases. 

Members welcome this proposal and recommend a minimum twelve-month period for suspensions.