The Standards Committee of Hertfordshire County Council met on Monday 8 December 2025 to discuss proposed changes to the standards regime for local authorities, review the annual complaints report, and consider the responsibilities and delegated powers of the committee. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a discussion on proposed national reforms to the councillor standards regime, which aim to introduce more robust sanctions and a clearer framework for handling misconduct. The committee also noted the annual report on complaints received, which detailed 16 complaints lodged between October 2024 and September 2025, with the majority being deemed outside the committee's jurisdiction or not warranting further action.

Responsibilities and Delegated Powers of the Standards Committee

The committee reviewed its role and responsibilities as outlined in the council's constitution. These include promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct among councillors, advising on the adoption or revision of the Code of Conduct, and assisting councillors in observing it. The committee is also responsible for monitoring the operation of the Code, advising on training, and hearing and determining complaints referred by the Monitoring Officer. Powers include recommending the removal of councillors from committees or the Cabinet, instructing training, withdrawing facilities, and requiring apologies. The committee also has the power to grant dispensations from interest requirements and to approve reasons for a councillor's absence from meetings.

Proposed Changes to the Standards Regime

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing proposed changes to the national standards regime for local authorities, as outlined in a briefing note from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). These proposals include the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct based on the Nolan Principles, a requirement for all principal authorities to convene formal standards committees, and the provision of individual support during investigations for both complainants and councillors.

Key proposed changes that generated discussion included:

• Suspension Powers: The introduction of powers for authorities to suspend elected members for a maximum of six months for serious breaches, with the option to withhold allowances and ban them from premises. There was also a proposal for interim suspensions of up to three months for serious allegations involving law enforcement investigations.
• Right to Review and National Appeals: A new right to review for both complainants and subject members to have cases reassessed, and the creation of a national appeals function.
• Disqualification: A new criterion for disqualification if a member is suspended for the maximum period more than once within five years.

Councillors raised concerns and asked questions regarding the potential for increased administrative activity, the clarity of support provisions, and the implications of time limits for investigations. Councillor Ruth Brown, Deputy Executive Member for Environment, Transport and Growth and Vice-Chair of the Standards Committee, questioned how the proposed changes would generate additional activity, noting that few complaints had gone to investigation. Quentin Baker, Director of Law & Governance, suggested that a more impactful regime might encourage more complaints, and that appeals processes could lead to more work.

The issue of time limits for complaints was also discussed. Councillor Eric Buckmaster highlighted the stress caused by prolonged investigations, while Nicholas Moss, an Independent Person, noted that some authorities, such as North Hearts, have a three-month time limit for complaints, with exceptions for protracted issues like bullying. Councillor Ken Crofton suggested that complaints should also have a time limit for being lodged. Mr. Baker confirmed that there is currently no statute of limitations for complaints.

A recurring theme was the difficulty in distinguishing when a councillor is acting in their official capacity versus their private capacity, particularly concerning social media use. Councillor Dr. Ben Crystall noted this as a vexed issue that was not clearly addressed in the proposals. Nicholas Moss explained that this distinction is often guided by high court cases, such as one involving Ken Livingstone, and that it is a challenge to navigate. Councillor Crofton suggested leaving this judgment to the monitoring officer, while Councillor Brown felt clarity was needed. The committee discussed the role of social media and the potential for it to be a source of complaints, with members agreeing on the importance of guidance and training on social media conduct.

Dispensation in Respect of the Council's Budget

The committee noted a verbal update regarding a rolling dispensation that allows elected members to participate in budget debates without needing to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest. This dispensation is in place because many aspects of the budget, including council tax setting, affect all elected members. Quentin Baker confirmed that reminders are sent out regarding interest forms, and Councillor Tim Williams, Deputy Executive Member for Resources and Performance and Chair of the Pensions Committee, suggested a further reminder before budget time. Councillor Williams also enquired about the practice of councillors being unable to participate in budget meetings if they are overdue on their council tax payments, which Mr. Baker confirmed is still standard practice and is communicated annually.

Annual Complaints Report 2024/2025

The committee received and noted the annual report on complaints received by the Monitoring Officer between 1 October 2024 and 30 September 2025. A total of 16 complaints were lodged during this period. Of these, 12 were deemed to be outside the committee's jurisdiction, and for the remaining four, no further action was warranted.

Councillor Ralph Muncer noted that this represents an increase from the previous year, where only one complaint was received, and suggested this might be linked to the recent election. Councillor Ruth Brown expressed her view that names of complainants and subject councillors should not be released unless a complaint warrants further investigation, citing her own experience with vexatious complaints. Councillor David Herring also suggested that a historical trend of complaints, particularly around election periods, could be provided in future reports.

Several councillors raised concerns about complaints related to councillors not responding to constituents. Councillor Muncer asked if the council could provide advice to members to manage public expectations regarding response times, acknowledging that being a councillor is not a full-time, remunerated role. Quentin Baker confirmed that many complaints about non-responses are not taken forward as breaches of the code of conduct, as councillors have other commitments, including full-time jobs. He reiterated that responsiveness is ultimately a matter for the electorate at the ballot box. Councillor Eric Buckmaster added that there are circumstances where councillors are justified in ceasing correspondence with residents who have exhausted the formal complaint process.

The discussion also touched upon the possibility of implementing an unreasonable customers policy, similar to one at North Hearts, to manage persistent correspondence. Quentin Baker mentioned that Hertfordshire County Council has an Assistant Complainants Policy which typically applies to service complaints, but that in cases of persistent correspondence, a single point of contact can be designated.

Councillor Muncer suggested that an auto-response feature for emails, acknowledging receipt and setting expectations for response times, could be beneficial for both councillors and the public.

Other Business: Review of Council Constitution

Councillor Ralph Muncer raised a matter of other business, proposing that the committee establish a cross-party working group to review the council's constitution. He noted that the constitution had not been reviewed since 2019 and that significant changes, including the political makeup of the council, warranted an update. Councillor Muncer proposed an 11-person working group, with members appointed by group leaders and the chair elected by the group.

Councillor John Hale, Chair of the Audit Committee, largely agreed with the need for a review but recalled a different number of members for the working group. He highlighted that the current situation of no single party having a majority makes a review particularly pertinent to identify potential weaknesses in the constitution. The written recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee suggested a politically proportionate working group with membership agreed by group leaders. It was agreed that the Standards Committee would note the recommendation and that a meeting would be scheduled early in the new year to discuss the terms of reference for such a working group, following discussions with group leaders.