BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE HELD IN THE HADLEIGH BUSINESS CENTRE, CROCKATT ROAD, HADLEIGH ON MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2008
Quick Links
PRESENT:
|
Members |
Co-opted members |
|
Mr P Jones
Mr R E Kemp
|
Miss P F Cook
Mr P J Down
Mr J B Newton (Chairman)
Mr J G Watson |
Mr P K Beer, Mrs S P Clarke, Mr R L Feltwell and Mrs T Kavvadias were unable to attend.
There were no declarations of interest.
RESOLVED
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2008 be confirmed and signed as a correct record, subject to the addition of Mrs T Kavvadias to the list of those present.
None received.
None received.
The Monitoring Officer submitted a report (Paper H137) on the above-mentioned consultation paper (a copy of which was appended to the report) published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The consultation was being undertaken to assist with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the revised Code of Conduct for Members introduced in May 2007. Proposed alterations to the Code included its application to Members when they were not acting in any official capacity and a suggestion that Members would tend to bring their office or authority into disrepute under the Code if they committed a criminal offence, other than a minor one. With regard to the latter, it was suggested also that a new general principle requiring Members to abide by the law in their private lives should be added to the ten existing ones.
Comment had been sought on these proposed changes and on the definitions that would need to be written into the Code in order to make them effective. Views were also requested on various other suggested alterations and clarifications, as well as on the introduction of a Code of Conduct for officers of local authorities, which, since it would be voluntary and any breach would therefore be a contractual or employment issue, was being considered through the Council’s normal human resources channels.
RESOLVED
That the Monitoring Officer be authorised, after consultation with the Chairman, to submit a response to DCLG on the various questions posed in the consultation paper incorporating the following views and supported by the Monitoring Officer’s comments as set out in Paper H137: -
(1) The Members’ Code of Conduct should also apply to Members’ conduct when they are acting in non-official capacities;
(2) The proposed use of the term “criminal offence” does not adequately distinguish between the degree of seriousness of an offence and it is suggested that the term “indictable offence” should be used instead and that any further determination of the seriousness or otherwise of the criminal conduct contributing to a finding of bringing the office of Councillor and his or her local authority into disrepute be left to Standards Committees;
(3) The acceptance of a formal caution should be regarded as being encompassed by the Members’ Code of Conduct and, in addition, Members should be required to report any conviction or caution that they have received to the Monitoring Officer;
(4) The Committee is not satisfied that there is any reason to define “official capacity” in the Code and it should be left to Standards Committees to focus on the nature of the offence and the point of alleged disrepute;
(5) It is agreed that criminal offences and convictions under the Code should only cover offences which, although they might have been committed outside the United Kingdom, would nevertheless also have been offences if committed in the UK;
(6) Ethical investigations into Members’ conduct should not be permitted to pre-empt any criminal process, which should be allowed to be completed first although, in this respect, a formal mechanism for adjourning the proceedings of an Assessment Sub-Committee is required;
(7) The amendments suggested in Question 6 of the consultation paper are supported;
(8) In relation to Question 7, the following amendments are suggested –
-
Where all Members of a local authority are affected by a proposal, such as for the restructure of local government in an area, the requirement for each Member to declare a personal interest, if that interest arises only by virtue of being an elected councillor, should not apply
-
The inconsistency between paragraphs 8(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and paragraph 8(2)(d), relating to membership of a body to which a Member is appointed or nominated by their authority and membership of another public authority, should be removed
-
Paragraph 9(2) could benefit from better drafting to make it clear that a personal public service interest that is also prejudicial should be declared at the beginning of the consideration of the business (and not only if the Member intended to speak)
-
It is considered that the existing paragraph 10(2) should precede the existing paragraph 10(1) so that it is clear that the public perception test for a prejudicial interest should only be applied if the item of business relates to a financial or regulatory matter
-
No prejudicial interests should arise from membership of another public authority
-
Paragraph 12(2) should make it clear that a Member with a prejudicial interest is only permitted to speak for the same amount of time as may be allowed to members of the public.
The Committee considered the Monitoring Officer’s report (Paper H138) reviewing the Monitoring Officer Protocol contained within Part 8 of the Council’s Constitution. In particular, amendments were required to the table containing the summary of the Monitoring Officer’s functions so as to bring it up to date with the legislative and administrative changes that formed the framework for the local determination of complaints about the conduct of Members of local authorities.
RESOLVED
That the Monitoring Officer Protocol be updated in accordance with the amendments described in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of Paper H138, subject to the following additional alterations to the Summary of Functions table: -
The above-mentioned Standards Board for England (SBE) publication was submitted, appended to a report by the Monitoring Officer (Paper H139). The “Bulletin” contained an analysis of the first set of data required to be filed with the SBE about complaints referred to Standards Committees between 8 May and 30 June 2008. It also indicated that the SBE was seeking views as to whether Standards Committees should be able to adjourn the consideration of complaints. Currently, if a Committee referred a matter for action other than a hearing, there was no power to investigate that matter in the event that the Member who was the subject of the complaint would not co-operate. The purpose of introducing a power to adjourn, therefore, was to enable the Monitoring Officer to ascertain the likelihood of the Councillor agreeing to undertake the contemplated action to resolve a complaint and to enable the Standards Committee to reconsider the complaint in light of that information.
In addition, it was stated that the SBE had been discussing with the Audit Commission and the Local Government Ombudsman Service how to handle complaints that also cut across those bodies’ respective responsibilities and it had been agreed that complaints involving maladministration as well as a breach of the Code should be referred by Standards Committees to the SBE for consideration as a case involving exceptional circumstances. It was also noted that a further amendment to the Local Government Act 2000 regarding the sharing of information meant that ethical standards officers (ESOs) were allowed to send to local Standards Committees copies of final reports of investigations that did not result in a hearing before a Standards Committee if the ESO believed that it would assist them in the discharge of their functions.
RESOLVED
That the contents of Paper H139 be noted.
Consultation on Adjourning Local Assessment considerations
RESOLVED
That the information contained in Paper H140 (and the copy of the letter sent to the Standards Board referred to therein) be noted.
The Monitoring Officer presented a report (Paper H141) on recent cases decided by the Adjudication Panel Appeals Tribunal arising out of the investigation of alleged breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
RESOLVED
That the information in Paper H141 be noted.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer submitted a report (Paper H142) containing details of interests and gifts declared by Members and officers during the period from June to September 2008. The report also included a schedule containing the statistical information concerning the consideration of complaints that had to be submitted to the Standards Board. It was reported that in some instances the full information regarding the declaration of interests had not been formally recorded in the Committee minutes and the Deputy Monitoring Officer undertook to endeavour to ensure that details of interests (as distinct from the category of interest) were recorded, along with details of whether or not a Member left the meeting during consideration of an item. It was also indicated that a change to the Register of Gifts and Hospitality form was required in order to clarify for users that they should also declare the identity of the person or organisation offering the gift.
RESOLVED
That the information in Paper H142 be noted.
The Monitoring Officer pointed out that neither member of the Committee who attended the Annual Assembly of Standards Committees in Birmingham on 13 and 14 October 2008 was present to report back on proceedings.
RESOLVED
That consideration be deferred until the Committee’s next meeting.
The Chairman reported that he intended to visit at least one meeting of each Committee during his Chairmanship and, so far, he had observed a meeting of the Development Committee on 20 August 2008 and a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee on 30 September 2008. Although both meetings had included serious and vigorous debate, the Chairman reported that Members conducted themselves in the correct manner.
RESOLVED
That the Chairman’s report be noted.
The Monitoring Officer reported that the Stoke-by-Nayland Hotel and the Holiday Inn, Ipswich, had been reserved for training sessions on 3 and 10 February 2009 respectively. It was intended that the sessions would commence at 6 or 6.15 p.m. and last for no longer than two hours. Members of the Committee were in agreement that, in that case, it would most likely be necessary to provide some food as well as liquid refreshments. The final programme for the sessions would be submitted for approval to the Committee’s next meeting.
RESOLVED
That the position be noted.
The business of the meeting was concluded at 12 noon.
Chairman
|