Meeting documents

Standards Committee
Monday, 9th May 2005

Present

Chair

D Hawkins

Councillors

Mrs F E F Anderson, WJ Davies, A Pritchard, Jean Quinn, SL Rowlands

Co-opted members

Mr J P Haywood, Mr B Lowe, Mrs L M Rodgers

Index to Minutes

Minute 19 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minute Text :

The members of the Committee were invited to consider whether they had a personal or prejudicial interest in connection with any of the items on the agenda and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of such interest. No declarations were made.

Top of page   Show Agenda

Minute 20 - MINUTES

Minute Text :

The Head of Legal and Member Services circulated the minutes of the previous meeting, held on 22 March 2005, which had been submitted to the Council on 25 April.

Minute Decision :

Resolved - That the minutes be approved and adopted.

Top of page   Show Agenda

Minute 21 - "A CODE FOR THE FUTURE" - REVIEW OF CODE OF CONDUCT

Minute Text :

Further to minute 15 (22/3/05), which had deferred a decision on the response to the Standards Board's consultation paper, the Head of Legal and Member Services submitted, as a suggested basis for the Committee's response, a set of answers prepared by the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors (ACSeS). He added that the Board would also welcome individual comments and that it was intended to offer all members of the Council the opportunity to submit them.

The Committee discussed certain of the suggested responses:

Question 29 - the members felt that the £25 threshold for the declaration of gifts and hospitality should remain.

Question 13 - Mrs Rodgers felt that the use of the word 'serious' in the proposed response was too subjective in relation to breaches of the Code. Having noted that Q.13 followed on from an acceptance that the requirement to report breaches should be removed or narrowed (in Q.12 ), the Committee agreed to support the second option under Q.12, namely that "the provisions [requiring members to report breaches of the Code by fellow members] could be amended for any complaint to be first reported to the Chairman of the Local Standards Committee and/or the Monitoring Officer and/or the person against whom the allegation might be made, so as to allow for some form of 'filtering' or a relatively 'reasonable explanation' route".

Questions 9,10 & 11 - Mr Haywood asked who would decide what was 'inappropriate' in the context of misuse of resources for inappropriate political purposes. The definition in the answer to Q.10 was accepted (noting that 'all embarrassing' should read 'all-embracing'), and it was agreed to support the robust approach proposed by ACSeS in paragraphs 9 and 11.

Minute Decision :

Resolved -

(1) That, subject to the comments set out above, the responses suggested by ASCeS be accepted as the basis of this Committee's overall response to the Standards Board's consultation.

(2) That members be encouraged to submit their individual views on the matters now discussed and on any other questions within the consultation document.

(3) That all members of the Council be advised of this decision and be given the opportunity to respond as individuals to the consultation.

Top of page   Show Agenda

Minute 22 - FREEMASONS GRAND CHARITY

Minute Text :

Further to minute 14 (22/3/05), the Head of Legal and Member Services reported on the operation of the Freemason Grand Charity, full details of which were published on the charity's own website. Originally established to provide help to poor and distressed Freemasons, it currently made grants and donations to many non-masonic charities, hospices and emergency aid overseas. The charity was able to take full advantage of tax relief and other benefits through its Relief Chest scheme. All members of the Council had been advised of the need to declare if they were members of the Grand Charity in the Register of Interests.

Minute Decision :

Resolved - That the report be noted.

Top of page   Show Agenda

Minute 23 - STANDARDS COMMITTEE - CONSTITUTION AND RELATED ISSUES

Minute Text :

The Head of Legal and Member Services submitted a number of items of correspondence from two of the independent members and sought the Committee's views on the various issues raised, namely:

(a) the composition and independence of the Standards Committee;
(b) the appointment of Chair and Vice-Chair and the role and responsibilities of the Chair;
(c) the composition of a sub-committee for determinations;
(d) strengthening the rights of independent members within the Council's Constitution, so that, where appropriate, they would be on a par with elected members, for example in the right to call a special meeting of the Standards Committee;
(e) the Independent Members Forum;
(f) raising public awareness of the Standards Committee.

The Chair felt that, in view of the fact that all apart from (e) raised issues related to the Constitution, they should in the first instance be referred to the Local Democracy Working Party, which was charged with making recommendations on constitutional changes. Mr Haywood contended that the Committee should comment on the matters and that its views should inform the LDWP. Mr Lowe stated that he would hope to be able to address the LDWP in support of his proposals. Mrs Rodgers expressed concern that the Committee was not prepared to form a view at that stage, but the Chair felt that a more structured report analysing the proposals should be prepared, which could then go to the LDWP in the first instance.

In relation to (e), Mr Lowe reported that the independent members had attended two meetings of the Independent Members Forum. The general practice at the Forum was to have a presentation in the morning - one had been from the Minister for Local Government; the second had been on standards issues - and a workshop seminar for members in the afternoon. A number of the proposals he had put forward (above) had arisen out of discussions at the Forum. They included the suggestion that there should be overlapping membership for independent representatives so that they did not all retire at the same time; and the payment of allowances (which was permitted under the current local government allowances scheme) - he was not in favour of that, but there was no consistent approach across the country. Mr Lowe also referred to proposals to extend the Forum to the whole of the North West - no decision had been reached on that - and the suggestion that Wirral might host a future meeting of the Forum. He accepted that there would be some cost involved and that enquiries would be needed as to the availability of funding. However, Mr Haywood did not expect that Wirral would be expected to host a meeting in the near future.

Minute Decision :

Resolved -

(1) - (7:1) - That all of the correspondence in relation to items (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f), including the advice from the Standards Board for England ("frequently asked questions") be referred to the Local Democracy Working Party; that its views be reported back to this Committee; and that the Committee reserve its comments until that stage.

(2) That the Head of Legal and Member Services look further into the possibility of Wirral's hosting a future meeting of the Independent Members Forum and what funding might be available.

Top of page   Show Agenda

(Minutes Published: 3 June 2005)