South Tyneside councillor Ed Malcolm 'formally censured' for breaching allowance rules

Councillor Ed Malcolm, who represents the Simonside and Rekendyke ward, was called before South Tyneside Council’s Standards Committee this week in relation to a complaint lodged back in 2019.

The alleged rule breach was linked to phone allowances claimed at a property where Cllr Malcolm lived with his brother, former council leader and councillor Iain Malcolm.

According to a report presented to the Standards Committee, Cllr Ed Malcolm and his brother received an installation and/or rental allowance for the same address since at least 2012/13.

Under council rules at the time however, only one such allowance was permitted.

Cllr Ed Malcolm said he believed the £8.89 per month paid to him was “towards the costs of calls that he made in his capacity as a councillor and not as a telephone rental or installation cost”.

The senior councillor, who requested a stop to the allowance being paid in November 2020, maintained that any breach of rules was unintentional and the “mistake” of council officers.

An investigation report on the complaint presented a Standards Committee on Thursday, July 7, which focused on the actions of Cllr Ed Malcolm and not Mr Iain Malcolm.

It concluded that, “whether unintentionally or otherwise,” Cllr Malcolm did not comply with the council’s Local Protocol – Member Allowances Overview document.

This made clear that “where an elected member resides at the same address as another elected member, only one installation, rental etc, is payable”.

As a result, the council’s investigating officer said there had been a breach of the council’s Code of Conduct for elected members in terms of accountability, which could “reasonably be regarded as bringing the council and the office of elected member into disrepute”.

Representations from Cllr Malcolm alleged the complaint was “politically motivated” as it came from opposition independent councillor John Robertson.

Cllr Malcolm also said council officers had set up the telephone allowance on his behalf in the past and that the system had not been audited to identify issues.

The councillor’s legal representative added Cllr Malcolm had “received an allowance which had the wrong label attached to it” and had relied on advice given by council officers “in good faith to his own detriment”.

It was noted that there was no evidence Cllr Malcolm had seen the document setting out allowances rules and that he had “underclaimed” for the allowance in question in terms of the funds he was entitled to.

However, the council’s investigating officer report said the issue was not about Cllr Malcolm receiving the allowance, but allegations that he received it in breach of council rules.

The report added Cllr Malcolm should have attempted to “equip himself with sufficient knowledge” of his allowance claims and the process behind them – especially as a cabinet member for resources and innovation for a “considerable period”.

During discussion of the complaint, several members of the Standards Committee questioned why the allowances situation had not been identified by audit procedures and rectified earlier.

Questions were also raised about why former council staff involved in the allowances process had not been interviewed or given the opportunity to provide written statements.

After moving to a private session for deliberations, councillors on the Standards Committee returned their verdict and upheld a number of recommendations made by the council’s investigating officer.

They found, on the balance of probabilities, that “by claiming an allowance for a land line which was already the subject of a claim [Cllr Malcolm] failed to comply with the local protocol governing members’ allowances”.

The panel acknowledged that this “may have been unintentional” and that council officers “tasked with operating the protocol bore some responsibility for the incorrect way in which the allowance was paid.”

The Standards Committee also found unanimously that Cllr Malcolm’s “failure to comply” with allowances rules amounted to him breaching the “accountability principle of public life”.

But a majority of councillors on the committee “did not feel that there was sufficient evidence” to find Cllr Malcolm had brought “his role as a councillor and the council into disrepute.”

In addition, the committee unanimously found Cllr Malcolm “did not use his position improperly to secure for himself an advantage” and that his conduct was “not fraudulent” as he “neither made a personal gain nor caused a loss”.

Professor Grahame Wright, independent chair of the Standards Committee, delivered the findings at South Shields Town Hall and set out the panel’s “proportionate response”.

This included issuing “a formal censure of Cllr Malcolm in writing for his failure to ensure that his telephone allowance claims were correct” and for the committee decision to be referred to a full council meeting for information.

The Standards Committee also unanimously “did not consider it necessary or appropriate to recommend that the matter be referred to the police.”

Councillor Ed Malcolm has served on South Tyneside Council for around 28 years, with time as a cabinet member, chair of South Tyneside Homes’ Board and a spell as Mayor of South Tyneside.

At the start of the 2022/23 municipal year, he was appointed chair of the council’s Overview and Scrutiny Coordinating and Call-in Committee.

More information on the council’s Standards Committee is available via South Tyneside Council’s website.

Such committees at local authorities deal with the conduct of councillors and ensure there are arrangements for dealing with complaints against councillors effectively.

The council’s website states: “This committee is concerned with promoting, maintaining and advising on high standards of conduct by councillors and co-opted members.”