Contact: Jeff Pattison, ext Ext 7321

1 SUMMARY

Members of the Standards Committee are asked to consider a complaint from 6 County Councillors about the conduct of Councillor P Heath

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 By letter dated the 7 March 2003 sent to Mr Peter Robertson the Chief Executive of the County Council 6 County Councillors lodged a complaint against Councillor Heath about remarks that they alleged that he had made at the Full County Council Meeting on Thursday 20 February 2003 (although the letter incorrectly referred to the date of the Council Meeting as the 20 March). A copy of the letter which was signed by Councillors Dickens, Bailey, Peskett, Price, Ludlow and Dowden is attached as Appendix 1 to this Report.

2.2 The complaint was passed by the Chief Executive to the Head of Corporate & Legal Services who is also the Monitoring Officer.

2.3 The Monitoring Officer then briefed Councillor Pierce, Chairman of the Standards Committee, on this complaint and it was agreed that it would be considered by the Standards Committee at a future date on the basis that the complainants were not alleging a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

2.4 The Monitoring Officer then wrote to Councillor Heath by letter dated 27 March 2003 explaining the background to the complaint and also enclosing a copy of it. Councillor Heath was asked for his response to this complaint in order that it could be fully taken into account by the Standards Committee when it met to consider the complaint. A copy of the letter to Councillor Heath is attached as Appendix 2.

2.5. All 6 complainants were then notified that the complaint would be considered by the Standards Committee and a copy of that letter dated the 31 March 2003 is also attached as Appendix 3.

2.6. As Members will gather from the initial correspondence, the complaint has not been treated by the complainants as a failure by Councillor Heath to comply with the Code of Conduct. If that had been the case, then the complaint, of necessity, would have been required to be submitted immediately to the Standards Board for England.

2.7. In practical terms, therefore the complaint is being dealt with, on a local basis by the Standards Committee at a level of seriousness below that of a potential breach of the Code of Conduct.

2.8. The examinations of the complaint by the Standards Committee is therefore outside the new statutory regime and within the Council's pre existing Common Law powers. Consideration of the complaint is also within the Terms of Reference of the Committee to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by Councillors.

2.9 Councillor Heath did not respond with his detailed comments and response to the complaint and therefore further letters of reminder were sent to Councillor Heath dated the 28 April 2003 and the 23 May 2003. Copies of these letters are attached as Appendices 4 and 5.

2.10 Following notification of the date of the Standards Committee to hear the complaint and an invitation to Councillor Heath to attend, Councillor Heath responded to the complaint by an e-mail to the Monitoring Officer dated 13 June 2003 and a copy is attached at Appendix 6. As Councillor Heath points out in his e-mail, where a Member does have reasonable grounds to consider that a failure on the part of another Member to comply with the Code of Conduct has taken place, there is an obligation to refer the matter to the Standards Board for England. Clearly neither the six Members making the complaint nor the Monitoring Officer in this case are of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with the Code. The Monitoring Officer has responded to Councillor Heath's e-mail and this is attached at Appendix 7.

2.11 The Monitoring Officer has also spoken to the Standards Board and they have confirmed that local Standards Committees may indeed look at complaints about, for example, behaviour which falls short of a perceived failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, but which, nonetheless merits some consideration. This is the approach being taken with this complaint and it allows the Standards Committee to take a positive and proactive stance regarding compliance with its Terms of Reference.

2.12 It is accepted that to pursue this route may cause complications should a complaint be subsequently made to the Standards Board in respect of the same matter, but it is not suggested that this should be a justification for abrogating local responsibility on the part of the Standards Committee.

2.13 A key point in this complaint is whether or not the words alleged to have been used by Councillor Heath or other words having a similar meaning were indeed used by Councillor Heath.

2.14 In this context, it is of course relevant to note that of the 6 County Councillors represented on the Standards Committee, all 6 were in attendance at the County Council Meeting on the 20 February 2003 (although it is not known if all were physically in attendance at the precise time that Councillor Heath is alleged to have used the words complained of) and may therefore be able to use their own recollection of events.

2.15 The other key issue that needs to be considered is that if Members are of the view that the words alleged to have been used were used, or other words of a similar nature, then what is the significance of using those words in the context of a political debate at the County Council.

2.16 Members may also wish to consider the relevance of the Council's Standing Orders at 28 which in respect of the relevant part provides that "The Chairman shall call a Member to Order for irrelevance, repetition, unbecoming language or any breach of Order ......".

3 DECISIONS AVAILABLE TO THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE

3.1 The range of potential decisions available to the Committee appear to be as follows:-

(1) That the words alleged to have been used by Councillor Heath, or words having a similar meaning :-

(a) were not used by Councillor Heath

(b) were used by Councillor Heath but are not considered to be inappropriate in the context of a political debate at the Council Meeting

(c) were used by Councillor Heath and are not considered to be appropriate in the context of a political debate at the Council Meeting

(2) In the event of (c) the limited range of Common Law remedies available appear to be as follows:-

(i) Ask Councillor Heath to apologise (although this is not enforceable)

(ii) Request Councillor Heath not to use these words or similar words in future County Council public meetings. Again, this is not enforceable although Members might consider a repetition to justify a formal complaint to the Standards Board.

(iii) Request all Members of the County Council to refrain from using the words alleged to have been used by Councillor Heath, or similar words, at County Council public meetings.

(iv) Ask the Monitoring Officer to draft guidance or a protocol on how Members should conduct themselves at future County Council public meetings and submit this to a future meeting of the Standards Committee for consideration.

4 RECOMMENDATION

4.1 To consider the complaint concerning the conduct of Councillor Heath.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes :

Published works.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE FILE