Title

The formal impact assessment of plans to scrap the Standards Board makes sweeping assumptions about cost savings, and its logic is difficult to fathom, says Gerry Budd The Localism Bill contains inelegantly-drafted provisions dealing with the Government's intention to do away with the Standards Board regime, clarify the law on predetermination, and, in certain instances, make failure to register and declare interests a criminal offence. Now there is now a new source of information which sheds light on these ideas. An impact assessment was published on the Communities and Local Government (DCLG) website on 31 January and it makes for very interesting reading. Localism is cited as the reason for the introduction of these measures. So, what are the headlines on the costs and savings across England? One-off costs of doing away with the Standards Board for England – about £19.2m – and first-tier tribunal – around £400,000 – with an average annual best estimated saving of £12.8m. Cost savings to each council? – a rough ‘guesstimate' by DCLG of about £27,500 a year – based, interestingly, on an assumption that councils will decide to keep ‘some aspects' of the framework. The new proposals will introduce the possibility of criminal prosecutions of councillors, and this is where the arithmetic gets rather more interesting. Gerry Budd:'Cost savings to each council? -a rough ‘guesstimate' by DCLG of about £27,500 a year' (Pic: Shutterstock) It is understandable for DCLG to try and find some proxy for working out the number of cases which might be investigated by the police and come before the courts in relation to allegations of non-declaration of interests. It has analysed the type of complaints the Standards Board for England dealt with in the past, and has come up with a range of 500 to 1,500 complaints each year. However, the impact assessment then implies that between 100 to 300 cases a year will be passed on to the police, and then impact on the criminal justice system. But where, you might ask, have all the other cases gone? This is where the monitoring officer – rather unexpectedly – takes centre stage. The document states that ‘while a number of complaints will be made directly to the police, it is assumed that they will initially pass back to the monitoring officer to investigate and potentially resolve, without having to launch a formal investigation'. The methodology thus treats the monitoring officer as, in effect, the first port of call for all complaints relating to the failure to register or declare personal interests. Of the total complaints received by monitoring officers relating to this type of offence, it is assumed that around 50% will be dismissed without further action – by whom, and following what process are not clear. It is further assumed that around 30% of complaints received by monitoring officers will be resolved locally, without police involvement. An example of this is then provided, and I quote: ‘This is expected to be possible if, for instance, the councillor in question agrees in the light of the complaint that he/she does in fact hold a personal interest, and agrees to register it immediately.' The logic behind this unqualified example is difficult to fathom. What difference is there between this and a councillor knowingly taking another councillor's car from the municipal car park, only to be stopped later on in the day when challenged, whereupon the councillor admits it wasn't their car after all and returns it? Sweeping assumptions are made about how much control the monitoring officer – or, indeed, anyone else except the complainant – will have over any complaint made in such circumstances, and the potential issues arising of overlap/interference with the functions of the police not addressed. Perhaps we shall see something insubordinate legislation or statutory guidance. If so, it will require some inspired drafting. Many have already made the point that the abolition of the entire standards framework, leaving authorities complete discretion as to whether to put anything in its place, is not only inadvisable but illogical. It is also at odds with the approach toward transparent corporate governance standards elsewhere in the public and private sector, including standards expected of parliamentarians. But, equally, many feel that the existing system has, to some extent, been ‘over engineered' and needs simplifying. I had hoped that, as the Bill proceeds, a more proportionate response might emerge and we would see at least some basic compulsory standards of behaviour applicable to all members of all relevant authorities established – perhaps based on the ten general principles of conduct – but a move to oblige authorities to have a code failed at committee stage. One thing is abundantly clear. Hard-pressed monitoring officers will have to add managing the implications of these changes to the rest of their ‘in tray of challenging legal issues' thrown up by this new ‘age of austerity', as their authorities wrestle with resources and priorities. Gerry Budd is a former monitoring officer and now a consultant with Trowers & Hamlins LLP

Title

WHITEHALL

A price worth paying?

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING