Meeting documents
Standards Committee
Monday, 28th January 2008
Present
Chair
D Hawkins
Councillors
A Bridson, WJ Davies, Karen Hayes, Sarah Quinn, SL Rowlands
Independent members
Brian Cummings, Ken Harrison MBE
Index to Minutes
- Minute 26 - MR KEN HARRISON MBE
- Minute 27 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
- Minute 28 - MINUTES
- Minute 29 - MATTERS ARISING
- Minute 30 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN - REPORT ON COMPLAINT OF Mr C
- Minute 31 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN - COMPLAINTS - PROGRESS REPORT
- Minute 32 - REVISED ETHICAL REGIME FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT - CONSULTATION
- Minute 33 - EXEMPT INFORMATION - EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
- Minute 34 - STANDARDS BOARD DECISION NOTICE
Minute 26 - MR KEN HARRISON MBE
Minute Text :
The Chair congratulated Ken Harrison on his award of an MBE in the recent New Year's Honours List.
Minute 27 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Minute Text :
The members of the Committee were asked 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.
Minute 28 - MINUTES
Minute Text :
The minutes of the previous meeting, held on 26 November, which had been reported to the Council on 17 December, were accepted as a correct record.
Minute 29 - MATTERS ARISING
Minute Text :
None.
Minute 30 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN - REPORT ON COMPLAINT OF Mr C
Minute Text :
The Director of Children's Services submitted the Ombudsman’s report regarding a child care case. The Ombudsman had made a finding of maladministration and injustice against the Council, in that the local authority had not make checks when the W children went to live with Mr C (in October 2004), and the children had not been visited; that Mr C had not been given financial support for children who were fostered with him; and that there had been excessive delays in putting Mr C's complaint through the complaints process, in particular that a Stage 3 Complaints Review Panel had not been convened. The Acting Monitoring Officer confirmed that the procedural requirements relating to publicity for the report had been satisfied.
The Ombudsman had recommended that:
(i) the Council should review its practices and procedures to ensure that there would be no repetition of children being placed with carers without proper checks being made;
(ii) the Council should audit a sample of at least ten emergency placements to establish what checks have been made compared to the regulations and good practice. The outcomes of (i) and (ii) should be reported to the Ombudsman and the Children's Services and Lifelong Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee within six months;
(iii) the Council should arrange for quarterly reports to be made for the next two years to the Children's Services and Lifelong Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee showing the number of complaints received and the stage reached in the statutory process compared to the required timescales, together with a note of any action being taken to remedy any problems.
Julia Hassall, Head of Children's Social Care Branch, reported on the action taken in response to the findings, including:
- the payment of arrears of fostering allowances to Mr C, together with a sum in compensation;
- the revision and updating of procedures;
- the strengthening of responsibility for emergency placements, under the Strategic Service Manager (Tracey Coffey), who would also determine whether the child in question was 'looked after' and whether the family member was therefore a foster carer; and, if the child was not designated as looked after, what support was offered to the family member to assist in caring for the child;
- clearing of the backlog of Stage 3 complaints;
- arrangements to submit the necessary reports to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, commencing in March 2008.
Whilst members were generally satisfied with the actions proposed, a number expressed concern about the breakdown in the procedures that were in operation at the time and requested a further report that would identify precisely what had gone wrong and would reassure members that such lapses could not recur.
Minute Decision :
Resolved -
(1) That the Committee note the findings from the Ombudsman’s report and agree the actions proposed by the Children and Young People's Department in response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
(2) That the Acting Monitoring Officer and Proper Officer be authorised to respond to the Ombudsman setting out the response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations, as outlined in the Director's report.
(3) That a further report be submitted to this Committee and the Children's Services and Lifelong Learning Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the lines now proposed.
Minute 31 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN - COMPLAINTS - PROGRESS REPORT
Minute Text :
Further to minute 21 (26/11/07), the Acting Monitoring Officer reported on progress in implementing the action plan aimed at reducing the time in responding to complaints referred by the Local Government Ombudsman. In addition to what was in the plan he had established an email address to receive all such complaints and to channel them to the appropriate departments within 24 hours. The current average response time was 27.4 days, i.e. within the Ombudsman's required 28-day maximum. However, he believed it was appropriate to set an ambitious target of 21 days, which he hoped the authority could achieve, or come near to achieving, within the following year.
Minute Decision :
Resolved -
(1) That the report be noted.
(2) That the Committee receive further reports on progress and performance.
Minute 32 - REVISED ETHICAL REGIME FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT - CONSULTATION
Minute Text :
The Acting Monitoring Officer reported that the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (the Act) provided, among other things, for a revised ethical framework for local government. His report set out the proposed changes and the implications for the operation of the Standards Committee and accompanied the Government's consultation document on those changes. Under the Act, standards committees:
- would be responsible for receiving allegations and deciding whether any action needed to be taken (referred to as ‘local assessment’);
- would have to be chaired by an independent member;
- would report periodically to the Standards Board;
- would be allowed to enter into joint working arrangements with the standards committees of other authorities.
The Standards Board would be responsible for monitoring and ensuring the effectiveness of local arrangements, including supporting authorities that were experiencing difficulties and driving up their performance.
Enabling regulations had still to be published, and he doubted if the Department for Communities and Local Government would be able to do so, following the end of the consultation period on 15 February, in time for the envisaged implementation date of 1 April 2008.
With regard to workload, he pointed out that the average annual number of complaints for metropolitan authorities was six, but for Wirral it was three, most of which had not been investigated any further by the Standards Board. However, the required publication of local arrangements for hearing complaints was expected to result in an increase, the extent of which could not be gauged at the current time. Arrangements for hearing such complaints would have to be put in place, and based on previous discussions he suggested that up to three separate sub-committees, each chaired by an independent member, might be required. Further training for members would be necessary, and he had alerted the Members Training Steering Group to that need. The Standards Board would expect to be apprised of what arrangements were in place. In response to members' concerns about workload, he stated that it was too early to say what, if any, additional resources - staffing (in-house or external), funding or additional committee members - might be required. It seemed clear though that, if shortage of resources led to the inefficient handling of complaints, the Standards Board would intervene.
One arrangement for handling complaints suggested in the consultation document was the establishment of a joint committee, which locally might be on a Merseyside-wide basis. If adopted, that approach would have to apply to the hearing of all complaints, not just some on an ad-hoc basis. Members generally felt that it would be more appropriate to have the necessary resources to handle complaints within the authority, both in terms of Wirral members hearing the complaints and officers carrying out the initial filtering.
The Committee made no additional comments in respect of the questions posed within the DCLG consultation document.
Minute Decision :
Resolved -
(1) That the Committee notes the report and the likely increase in workload for it and the Monitoring Officer as a result of the proposed changes.
(2) That the Committee receive further reports on progress as appropriate, and, if necessary, a special meeting of the Committee be held to agree any arrangements that might have to be put in place before 1 April.
(3) That the interim arrangements for hearing local complaints, agreed at the meeting on 27 June 2006, be re-affirmed.
Minute 33 - EXEMPT INFORMATION - EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Minute Text :
Minute Decision :
Resolved - That, under section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by the relevant paragraph of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to that Act.
Minute 34 - STANDARDS BOARD DECISION NOTICE
Exempt :
NOT FOR PUBLICATION: Exempt by virtue of paragraph 1, Part I, Schedule 12A (as amended), Local Government Act 1972.
Minute Text :
The Acting Monitoring Officer and Proper Officer reported on a complaint against a councillor that had been considered by the Standards Board for England. The Board's decision had been that the complaint should not be referred for investigation.
Minute Decision :
Resolved - That the decision be noted.
(Minutes Published: 5 February 2008)