Meeting documents

Standards Committee
Wednesday, 23rd November, 2011 7.30 pm

Time: 7.30pm Place: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City
 PRESENT: Mr N Moss (Independent Chairman), Mr P Chapman (Independent Vice-Chairman) and Mr P Joester.
Parish Councillor B Hillan.
District Councillor David Kearns, District Councillor Marilyn Kirkland, District Councillor M.R.M. Muir, District Councillor Lawrence Oliver and District Councillor Mike Rice (substitute).
 IN ATTENDANCE: Corporate Legal Manager (Monitoring Officer) and Committee and Member Services Manager.
 ALSO PRESENT:
Item Description/Resolution Status Action
PART I
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of District Councillors Mrs A.G. Ashley, Judi Billing and Bernard Lovewell, Parish Councillor Robert Wornham and Mr Stewart Gillies (Independent Member). District Councillor Mike Rice was acting as substitute for District Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley.
 Noted   
2 MINUTES
Minutes

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 February 2011 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee was updated on the following matters:

- The Chairman advised that former Parish Councillor Michael Goddard, who had been a Member of the Standards Committee for a number of years, had stood down as a Parish Councillor in May 2011 and thus was no longer a Member of the Committee. The Committee agreed that former Parish Councillor Goddard had been very supportive during his time in office and wished to record its thanks and appreciation for his service;

- The Council's revised Whistleblowing Policy had been adopted by Cabinet at its meeting held on 22 March 2011 and, similarly, the Conflict of Interest Policy had been published following approval by the former Audit and Risk Committee at its meeting held on 28 February 2011;

- The Chairman would liaise with the Monitoring Officer to follow up any Parish Acceptance of Office and/or Declarations of Interest Forms which were missing from the records.
 Agreed   
3 NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS

No other items were presented for consideration.
 Noted   
4 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest should be declared immediately prior to the item in question.
 Noted   
5 CHANGES TO THE STANDARDS REGIME
Report and appendices

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report in respect of anticipated changes to the Standards Regime. The following appendices were submitted with the report:

Appendix 1 - New Seven Principles compared against the old 10 General Principles;
Appendix 2 - Extracted Paragraphs 3-7 (renumbered) from the existing Code of Conduct.

The Chairman advised that the Localism Act 2011 introduced new standards arrangements, planned to come into effect from April 2012. The Act had received Royal Assent as recently as 15 November 2011, and no formal guidance had been received as to its application. However, it was clear that there would be fundamental changes to the existing Standards machinery.

The Chairman summarised the main features of the new regime as follows:

- A Code of Conduct was mandatory. The fundamentals of the Nolan Principles were also mandatory, but the remainder of the Code was discretionary;
- A Standards Committee was no longer mandatory, but was discretionary;
- If the Council chose to retain a Standards Committee it could co-opt other members if it wished. However, the Council was required under the Act to have at least one independent person, part of whose role would be to offer a view on alleged breaches of the Code and what action to take and to offer advice to District and Parish Councillors who were the subject of complaints;
- The Council was required to continue to have arrangements to investigate and take decisions on alleged breaches of the Code, but there was no detail as to how these arrangements were to work. If breaches were found, with or without an investigation - which was permissible - no sanctions were specified;
- There were tighter requirements for declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, with failure to declare without reasonable excuse being a criminal offence (£5,000 fine and disqualification from office for a period of time). However, where declarations were made, there were looser stipulations in terms of the conduct required by the Member.

The Chairman stated that a number of questions were posed in the Monitoring Officer's comprehensive report. He considered that the task of the Committee would be to answer these questions, expressing views where appropriate, which the Monitoring Officer would incorporate into her report to various other Council bodies as part of the process of obtaining approval for the revised Standards arrangements for the Council, as required by the Act. This would be subject to the clarification of any details, such as on Members' interests, which would be dealt with by subsequent Regulations, and various drafting interpretations, such as the procedure regarding complaints. He therefore commented that it may not be possible to provide answers to all of the questions, but he felt that there was sufficient information to be able to give the Council a suggested steer. Based on the Monitoring Officer's report, he had identified nine questions for the Committee to consider.

Q1. What form of Code of Conduct should we have?

The Chairman advised that the current Code of Conduct could be revised or a new one developed. In either case, it was required to include the seven Nolan Principles. It did not require the three additional principles in the (current) Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001.

The Committee generally felt that the extent of the existing Code should not be diminished. The Monitoring Officer advised that the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors (ACSeS) was in the process of compiling a generic revised Code, which should be available in draft within a few weeks. It was agreed that a version of this Code, including any necessary "local" amendments, should be submitted to the Committee for consideration in due course. It was further considered that any agreed NHDC Code should perhaps be used as the basis for a Code that each Parish Council in the District would be required to adopt.

Q2. Should we have a Standards Committee or not?

Members favoured the retention of a Standards Committee. They considered that a Standards Committee would:

- increase community confidence that the Council was taking standards issues seriously;
- safeguard the position of Members by making explicit that they could be held to account;
- provide an opportunity for members of the public to make complaints;
- be impartial, with Party loyalties set aside, and with Parish Council representatives and Independent Members; and
- itself be accountable.

Members considered that the Committee should include Parish and Co-opted Members. In terms of its role, the Chairman commented that should the Committee be advisory, it could be chaired by an Independent Member, with recommendations being made to the Council, but that if the Committee were to make decisions, then it had to be chaired by an Elected Member. The Committee considered that Co-opted/Independent Members should be entitled to receive an allowance, and asked the Monitoring Officer to request the Independent Remuneration Panel to consider the level of such allowances in due course.

In respect of the role of the future Committee, Members asked the Monitoring Officer to investigate the possibility of a Committee/Sub-Committee being established to deal with complaints, chaired by an Independent/Co-opted person, making an immediate recommendation for decision to a Committee/Sub-Committee with the same membership, but chaired by one of the Elected Members. The Monitoring Officer would consider the suggestion while remaining mindful of Constitutional proprieties.

Q3. How many Independent Person(s) should we have and what should be their role?

It was noted that under the Act the Council was required to appoint at least one Independent person, but that none of the existing Independent Members was permitted to hold that position. However, existing Independent Members could be co-opted by the Council. It was considered that there should be a minimum of two Independent Persons and two co-opted Members on the Committee.

Q4. What level of disclosure of interests should we have?

The Chairman advised that the Act introduced the concept of a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, although it was unclear what this meant. Regulations would follow to clarify and define this term. The Committee generally felt that a high standard of declaration of interests should be operated, although declined to give a firm view on the matter, pending its future consideration of the content of the Regulations when issued.

Q5. What arrangements should we have for maintaining appropriate conduct at meetings?

The Chairman reminded Members of the requirements for the disclosure of Personal and of Prejudicial Interests under the existing Standards Regime. Each declaration placed different duties on Members. The new arrangements varied those duties. In broad terms, the Committee felt that Members with a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest under the new regime should declare the interest and leave the meeting for the duration of the item and should not enter the public gallery.

Q6. How should applications for dispensation be handled?

The Chairman advised that the restrictions on Members' conduct at meetings for those with declared Disclosable Pecuniary Interests could be lifted for a period of time. The Committee was of the view that any applications for such dispensations should be submitted to the Monitoring officer, who would determine each request in consultation with one of the Independent Persons on the Committee. Members were undecided as to whether or not an appeal mechanism would be appropriate should any requests for a dispensation be declined.

Q7. Who should receive complaints - now called allegations - and how should they be dealt with?

The Chairman stated that Act required only arrangements for allegations to be investigated and decisions made. What such arrangements should be had been left to Councils to determine. There was no requirement under the Act for assessment or review. Any process needed to be fair and open, but there was an opportunity to remove some of the complexities of the existing system and to introduce greater flexibility.

The Committee felt that any process should be simplified, but incorporate the rules of natural justice. However, that the current review mechanism should be abandoned. Members agreed that the Monitoring Officer should receive allegations in the first instance and should commission any investigations required. The composition of any Committee/Sub-Committee considering an allegation should be established so that a decision that satisfied the required arrangements could be made as expeditiously as possible.

Q8. What is the role of Political Parties in promoting and maintaining high standards?

The Chairman was of the view that the Political Parties had an important role in creating/maintaining discipline as a principle amongst their Members, and provided a valuable informal mechanism for holding Members to account for their conduct. He felt that it would be useful if all Political Groups on the Council gave a formal commitment to high standards.

The Committee agreed that the formal declaration from each Group would be a good idea. Members felt that there that there could be a role for the Monitoring Officer to enter into informal discussions with Group Leaders should any concerns be expressed about the behaviour and conduct of a Member(s) of their Group.

Q9. How can we secure co-operation of the Police and Parishes?

The Chairman explained that, under the new arrangements, the Police would become involved in standards issues if a Member had failed to declare an interest and criminal intent was suspected. On conviction, the sanctions included a £5,000 fine and disqualification from office for up to four years. In terms of Parishes, each Parish was required to adopt a Code of Conduct, but any allegations of breaches of those Codes were still required to be reported to and considered by District Councils.

The Committee considered that the Monitoring Officer should write to Hertfordshire Constabulary to draw attention to the new criminal offence under the Act; and should also write to all Parish Councils in the District, advising them of the new arrangements.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the report be noted;

(2) That the general comments of Members on the reports be taken on board by the Monitoring Officer in the future development of new standards arrangements for NHDC;

(3) That the Committee's answers and comments of the series of questions set out in Paragraph 4.4 of the report be taken on board by the Monitoring Officer in the future development of new standards arrangements for NHDC.

REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure the Council meets its statutory obligations and continues to improve its working practices.
 Agreed  Corporate Legal Manager
6 UPDATE ON PROGRESS AND WORK PROGRAMME
Report
Appendix 1
Addendum

The Monitoring Officer presented a report in respect of an update on progress and the Committee's Work Programme. The following appendices were submitted with the report:

Appendix 1 - Work Programme;
Appendix 2 - Part 2 Update on Code of Conduct Complaint Handling (tabled at the meeting).

The Monitoring Officer drew attention to the Gifts and Hospitality Policy Review. She advised that the Officer Policy Review was to be considered by the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee on 8 December 2011 and by Cabinet on 13 December 2011.

In terms of the Member Policy Review, the Monitoring Officer explained that a recommendation contained in a recent audit report had proposed that the Form that Members were required to complete to register a gift and/or hospitality over the value of £25.00 should include a question asking Members to state what they did with any gifts received. An amended Form with this information included was tabled at the meeting.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the updates contained in the report be noted, and that the Work Programme, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be agreed;

(2) That the Gifts and Hospitality Declaration Form be amended, as follows:

- The words "or estimated" should be inserted in the tile of the form after "£25.00";
- The question at Part 4 of the Form should solely state "If a gift was accepted, please state what you did with it?"; and

(3) That the Monitoring Officer be requested to arrange further training on changes to the Standards Framework coming forward as part of the Localism Act in April/May 2012, and arrange for a presentation on the changes to be given to all Members of the Council.

REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure good governance within the Council.
 Noted   
7 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following discussion, on the grounds that the items may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended).
 Agreed   
PART II
8 APPENDIX 2 TO UPDATE ON PROGRESS AND WORK PROGRAMME REPORT - UPDATE ON CODE OF CONDUCT COMPLAINTS
Data/Standards Committee/201111231930/Agenda/Appendix 2

The Committee considered an update on code of conduct complaints.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the update on Code of Conduct complaints, as set out in Appendix 2 to the Update on Progress and Work Programme report, be noted;

(2) That future reports of this type include total numbers for both complaints against District Councillors and complaints against Parish Councillors, as well as providing numbers for public complaints against councillors and councillor complaints against fellow councillors.
 Noted