Agenda item 4

1. PURPOSE:

The Standards Committee has agreed that Town Councillor Julia Haskey should be given the opportunity to make representations in respect of the findings of a report by the Monitoring Officer that she failed to comply with Caldicot Town Council’s Code of Conduct for Members.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the committee considers whether there is evidence of any failure to comply with the Town Council’s Code of Conduct and if so, what, if any action needs to be taken in respect of that failure.

3. KEY ISSUES:

3.1 I have produced a report (Appendix 1) of an investigation into an allegation

against Councillor Julia Haskey of Caldicot Town Council. Mrs Haskey’s statement in response is attached as Appendix Y.

3.2 In light of the comments made at the last hearing of this matter by the committee (Appendix 2) and of Mrs Haskey’s statement (Appendix Y) I have not undertaken a formal consideration of disputed facts and the procedure to be followed at this hearing therefore is attached at Appendix 3 which replaces paragraphs 3.3 to 3.7 of the procedure formerly agreed (not attached).

4. REASONS:

To discharge the committee’s duties under the Local Government Investigation’s (Functions of Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales) Regulations 2001 as amended.

5. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: None. 6. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS: None. 7. CONSULTEES:

Councillor Haskey has received an advance copy of this report.

SUBJECT: Allegation of a Breach of Caldicot Town Council’s Code of Conduct for Members MEETING: Standards Committee DATE: 3 October 2013 DIVISION/WARDS AFFECTED: None

8. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Appendices to Monitoring Officer report presented to Committee on 3 June 2013 9, AUTHOR: S.M.W. Andrews, Monitoring Officer 9. CONTACT DETAILS:

Tel: 01633 644217 E-mail: murrayandrews@monmouthshire,gov.uk

Appendix 1 

1  

INVESTIGATION OF A COMPLAINT

AGAINST COUNCILLOR JULIA HASKEY OF CALDICOT TOWN COUNCIL

Report of Monitoring Officer

Appendix 1 

2  

SUMMARY Councillor James Higginson complained that Councillor Julia Haskey had breached the Code of Conductt for Members of Caldicot Town Council at its meeting of the 30 November 2011. He had been told by other members who had attended the meeting that there had been a discussion on a letter from Monmouthshire Housing Association in which it had asked if the Town Council had any proposals for environmental improvements that would impact upon work it intended for its own properties. The letter mentioned the fact that owner/occupiers would be charged on a pro rata basis for works carried out. He was told that Councillor Haskey spoke on the matter and contributed to a discussion that expressed views to the effect that the policy of recharging owner/occupiers was discriminatory and called for legislative changes in the way in which Housing Associations conducted their business. Councillor Higginson said that it was his understanding and that of the other Town Councillors that Councillor Haskey was a leasehold/owner of a Monmouthshire Housing Association property in the locality. He believed therefore that Councillor Haskey should have declared an interest in the matter and not have participated in the discussion. Councillor Higginson said that he had declared an interest as a board member of MHA in the matter and left the room. The Ombudsman investigated the complaint and concluded that whilst there was evidence to suggest that a breach of paragraph 11(1) of the Code may have occurred, he was not persuaded that the sanction would be applied if this matter were to be referred to the Standards Committee of the Council. After seeking my view as to whether the investigation of the complaint could therefore be completed locally, he formally ceased his investigation so that the matter could be referred to me under Section 70(4) of the Local Government Act 2000. By that stage, the Ombudsman had gathered sufficient information for the matter to be concluded by my interviewing Mrs Haskey. I have therefore adopted the bulk of the Ombudsman’s investigation in this matter and have set it out as attached. I have also attached a copy of an agreed note of my meeting with Mrs Haskey. For Members’ information, although the interview was conducted in October last year, Mrs Haskey for a number of reasons was unable to return the signed copy until March 2013. I have concluded that there is some evidence that Councillor Haskey did act in breach of the Code as set out in the Ombudsman’s draft findings. Indeed, Mrs Haskey has acknowledged that a member of the public witnessing a debate which touched on the possibility of leaseholders of Herbert Road having to pay towards car parking provision irrespective of their ability to drive might reasonably consider that to be a declarable interest under the Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman’s investigation of Councillor Higginson’s complaint was to consider whether Councillor Haskey had failed to comply with any of the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: Paragraph 6(1)(a) Bringing the office of member or the Council into disrepute. Paragraph 7(a) Attempting improperly to secure an advantage for self or others. Paragraph 11(i) Failing to declare a personal interest. Paragraph 14(i) Engaging in Council business whilst having a prejudicial interest in the

matter.

Appendix 1 

3  

Relevant legislation Under the terms of their lease, leaseholders must pay towards the cost of any services or work to the building where their home is or the estate it is on. Under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1984 (amended by section 151 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002), landlords must consult leaseholders about some of the works and services they must pay for). This requirement became effective in Wales on 31 March 2004. Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code of Conduct PSOW issued guidance for members of local authorities in Wales on the model Code of Conduct in April 2010 (“PSOW guidance”). I include at Appendix T extracts of the guidance which are relevant to this complaint. Events leading to the complaint On 7 November 2011, MHA wrote to the Community Council to inquire whether it had any proposals for environmental improvement works which could impact upon its own plans for improvements. The letter also mentioned that owner occupiers would be recharged for any works to be carried out. This letter was included in the agenda for the meeting of 30 November 2011 at Item 8766(3). It was alleged that this had led to a discussion about the policy of recharging leaseholders for improvement work and that some members had expressed the view that it was discriminatory and there should be a change in the legislative provisions. It was alleged that as Councillor Haskey is a leaseholder of a MHA property in Herbert Road, Monmouth, she had an interest in such matters and should have declared an interest and not have participated in the discussion. Councillor Higginson said that as he is on the Board of MHA, he declared an interest and left before this item came up on the agenda. PSOW investigation During his investigation he obtained copies of minutes and other documents from the Town Council. The minutes of the meeting of 30 November 2011 are attached at Appendix D. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of 25 January 2012 is attached at Appendix 1. The Town Council also supplied a record of attendance at its meeting of 12 June 2007 when I supplied training material on the Code of Conduct for members and briefed members on its requirements. This is attached at Appendix J. Although Councillor Haskey was not present at the meeting, the Town Council has confirmed that she would have received a copy of the minutes and the training material (Appendix K). The Town Council also supplied a copy of the letter from MHA, which asks the Town Council if it has any proposals for environmental improvement works that would impact upon its properties. This is attached at Appendix L. Also attached is the email exchange between the Town Council and MHA which followed the meeting of 30 November 2011 and this is at Appendix M. A discussion took place with MHA to clarify the purpose of letter of 7 November 2011 to the Town Council and this is attached at Appendix N. PSOW also obtained confirmation from MHA that Councillor Haskey is the leasehold owner of its property at 19 Herbert Road, Caldicot, which is attached at Appendix O.

Appendix 1 

4  

Questionnaires were sent to the Clerk of the Town Council and her assistant and also to the members who were present at the meeting of 30 November 2011. A sample copy of the covering letter and questionnaire are attached at Appendix P and a list of the addressees at Appendix Q. The completed questionnaires are attached at Appendix R and are sequentially numbered. A précis of the responses is attached at Appendix X. On 25 April, Councillor Higginson submitted a letter, together with an election campaign leaflet from Councillor Haskey, which he believed provided further evidence of Councillor Haskey’s breach and involvement in the business of MHA. These documents are attached at Appendix S. Of the 14 questionnaire responses (Appendix R, numbered 1 to 14), 9 respondents recalled that Councillor Haskey had spoken on the item, these being Sandiford, McIntyre, Stevens, Conniff, Watts, Easson, Harris, Lloyd, Ashwin and Botchett. Of these, four recalled her contribution as follows.

Councillor Lloyd said that Councillor Haskey had raised the issue of owner occupiers being asked to contribute to estate improvements, mentioning in particular some parking spaces in the street in which she lived.

Councillor Harris recalled that she spoke and that it was the general view of the Council that MHA should not be able to demand payment from houses not under their ownership.

Councillor Easson said that Councillor Haskey had expressed strong concern that owner occupiers should not be compelled to fund such works. He could not recall her exact words. He felt the matter was irrelevant as he did not think MHA could enforce the matter. He said that Councillor Haskey was very influential in securing the outcome of the discussion as she became so exercised about the matter.

Councillor Watts could not recall exactly what Councillor Haskey said but that she had participated more than other Councillors as she had the most information on the subject, being an owner occupier of a MHA property.

PSOW put the evidence found by his investigation to Councillor Haskey, enabling her to review that evidence before responding to the questions which were put to her. What Councillor Haskey said In her initial response to questions and evidence, Councillor Haskey left a telephone message saying she would be consulting a government minister on the complaint and needed more time to reply. PSOW investigator’s letter to her declining the request for an extension and advising her that her response must be her own is attached at Appendix U. In her response, Councillor Haskey said that the debate that arose from the letter from MHA had been wide ranging and included topics such as antisocial behaviour, footpaths, lighting etc. She said that she had mentioned in passing the mechanism used by MHA for recharging leaseholders such as herself by way of information to enhance the discussion. She confirmed that she was the leasehold owner of a MHA property in Herbert Road, Caldicot, but said that she thought her position as a leaseholder was no different from any other leaseholder or owner occupier in Monmouthshire as MHA is a countywide association. She said that she did not live in the property in Herbert Road and did not have a car, so any car parking proposals would not affect her. Councillor Haskey said that she believed her ward constituents would expect her to contribute to a debate, where she had specific knowledge. She denied that she had sought

Appendix 1 

5  

to influence the debate for her personal or financial benefit and there was no evidence that she had benefited. She said that the complaint was trivial and vexatious and may constitute a breach of the Code. Councillor Haskey said that she had been a Councillor for 8 years, but that she had not had any training. She could not recall exactly what she had said and pointed out that others had contributed to the debate. Councillor Haskey said that she did not have a declarable interest in the matter and that Councillor Higginson had not been present so did not know what she said. She said that no other member felt she had a conflict of interest as they had not complained. Councillor Haskey’s statement to PSOW is attached at Appendix V and her questionnaire response at Appendix W. Her statement to me is at Appendix Y. Disputed facts In her correspondence with PSOW, Councillor Haskey disputed that her involvement in the debate constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct and she believes that she was providing information about MHA charges to non-tenants that was helpful or informative to the discussion. Councillor Haskey disputed that she would have derived any benefit from the discussion on improvements by MHA which may have included proposals to improve parking as she does not have a car and does not live in the property which is owned and managed by MHA. In her statement to me, Councillor Haskey acknowledged that upon reflection it might well be the case that a member of the public might reasonably consider her speaking in the debate in seeking to influence the views of other councillors to be a declarable interest under the Code of Conduct. Analysis of evidence Evidence has been supplied to show that Councillor Haskey is the leaseholder of a property in Caldicot which is owned and managed by MHA. It is also evidenced that she participated in council business which related to plans that might impact upon MHA properties in Monmouthshire. It is also evidenced that the discussion included reference to the potential financial implications of such works on leaseholders and owner occupiers in the vicinity. The matter under discussion on 30 November 2011 was a letter from MHA asking if any estate improvements were planned in the vicinity which might have a bearing on the residents of MHA. As part of that letter, the possible future recharge to owner occupiers and leaseholders benefitting from any work carried by MHA was discussed. This letter prompted two members to declare an interest and leave the meeting. One of these was Councillor D Evans, who felt that this role on the Housing Committee of Monmouthshire made it inappropriate to remain. The other was Councillor Higginson who felt that his role on the board of MHA made it inappropriate for him to remain. While opinions vary as to the extent of Councillor Haskey’s contribution to the matter, it is clear that nine members recall that she did participate in the discussion. Four members say they recall what she said to some extent and believe that her role in the debate was at the very lease significant. Indeed, Councillor Haskey herself suggests that

Appendix 1 

6  

she put forward information about the recharge system as no one else present seemed to be aware of it and that she was in a position to do so, being a leaseholder herself. Turning now to the consequence of this matter, it would appear that as a hypothetical issue was under discussion, there was no particular consequence other than an email to MHA querying the recharge system and asking for a rethink. The response from MHA sets out some information on the matter and reminds members that the Council would recharge when it was responsible for managing the stock. Conclusions The Ombudsman initially expressed the view that there was evidence to suggest that a breach of paragraph 11(i) of the Code may have occurred; however, I agree with the PSOW assessment and am not persuaded that a sanction would necessarily be applied by the Standards Committee of the Council or is indeed appropriate.  

Appendix 2

Extract of minutes of Standards Committee hearing 3 June 2013 11 ALLEGATION OF A BREACH OF CALDICOT TOWN COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS Note: County Councillor D Evans declared an interest in this matter and left the council chamber prior to the matter being considered The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales had referred for local investigation a complaint against Councillor Julia Haskey of a failure to comply with the Town Council’s Code of Conduct for Members. The Ombudsman had investigated this matter and a copy of his report was attached. The Monitoring Officer had also investigated the matter and agreed with the Ombudsman’s conclusion that the investigation disclosed sufficient information to put the allegation to Councillor Haskey. However, for reasons espoused by the Ombudsman, and having regard to Councillor Haskey’s representations to the Monitoring Officer, this did not appear to be a matter that warranted any particular sanction beyond possibly attendance at suitable training. We resolved 1. That Councillor Haskey be advised that the Committee is minded to come to the view that there has been a breach of the Code, that no further action would be appropriate, and that she be asked to attend further training. 2. That Councillor Haskey be given the opportunity to make representations either orally or in writing to the next meeting of the Committee.

Appendix 3

REPORT OF PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN FOR WALES REGARDING AN ALLEGATION MADE AGAINST

TOWN COUNCILLOR JULIA HASKEY

PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED AT THE HEARING AT COUNTY HALL, USK, ON 3 OCTOBER 2013

1. The Monitoring Officer will be asked to present his report including any

representations with regard to disputed facts. 2. Haskey or her representative to ask any questions of the Monitoring

Officer in respect of his report and its presentation. 3. The committee members will have the opportunity to ask questions of

the Monitoring Officer by way of clarification. 4. Councillor Haskey or her representative will have the opportunity to

make representations in respect of the report and presentation by the Monitoring Officer.

5. The monitoring Officer will ask questions of clarification of Councillor

Haskey or her representative 6. Standards Committee members to have the opportunity to ask

questions of Councillor Haskey or her representative by way of clarification of matters raised.

7. Councillor Haskey or her representative will have an opportunity to sum

up her representations with regard to any findings of fact. 8. Standards Committee to retire to deliberate on findings of fact with the

Clerk to the Committee and deputy Monitoring Officer. 9. The Committee to announce its findings in relation to matters of fact

within the Monitoring Officer’s report. 10. The Monitoring Officer’s will have the opportunity to address the

Committee with regard to any failure to comply with the relevant Code of Conduct having regard to the Committee’s findings of fact.

11. Councillor Haskey or her representative may to make representations

to the Committee with regard to any allegation of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

12. The Committee will deliberate in private with its Clerk and the deputy

Monitoring Officer as to whether the member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.

Appendix 3

13. The Committee will announce its decision with regard to the allegation of any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

14. If any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct is found, the

Monitoring Officer will have the opportunity to make submissions in relation to any penalty.

15. Councillor Haskey or her representative will have the opportunity to

make submissions in relation to any penalty. 15. The Committee to deliberate in private with its Clerk and the deputy

Monitoring Officer before announcing its final decision in public.