Members are asked to consider whether they have personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they are.

No declarations of interest were received.

To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 4 July, 2011.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 July 2011 be confirmed as a correct record.

A report by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management provided Members with a summary of the complaints made against Wirral Councillors where it had been alleged that the Council Members’ Code of Conduct had been breached.

Members noted that the Scrutiny Programme Board had also considered this report at its meeting on 8 September 2011 and had resolved, amongst other things, ‘That the Standards Committee be recommended to put in place proper timescales and a monitoring regime for dealing with complaints’.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the Act”) had provided, among other things, for a revised ethical framework for local government.  The implications of this Act had been reported to the Committee at its meetings on 28 January and 31 March 2008 (Minute No. 32 and 39 refers). 

The relevant provisions were brought into force on 8 May 2008 by the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 (“the Regulations”).  The Act had made a number of key changes to the ethical framework under which local authorities were required to operate. These were:

• Standards Committees would be responsible for receiving allegations made against Members and deciding whether any action should be taken (referred to as ‘local assessment’).
• Standards Committees must be chaired by an independent member.
• Standards Committees would report periodically to the Standards Board for England now Standards for England (“SfE”).
• The SfE will be responsible for monitoring and ensuring the effectiveness of local arrangements, including supporting authorities which are experiencing difficulties and driving up their performance.

The Council had approved the requisite changes to the Council’s Constitution at its meeting on 14 July 2008, namely amendments to the Committee’s Terms of Reference which also included new terms of reference for Initial Assessment, Review and Hearings Panels as required under the Act.

The Committee had previously expressed dissatisfaction with delays in dealing with Standards complaints. In response to this, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management had submitted a report which had been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 26 January 2011 seeking approval for a Local Protocol on Local Assessment and Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct by Members (Minute No. 28 refers).  The aim of the Local Protocol had been to improve the manner in which allegations and complaints were handled and processed.

The Committee had gone on to express concern that delays in dealing with standards complaints were unacceptable for all parties concerned.  However, Members had been of the view that the timescales within the draft Local Protocol were not sufficiently clear and that there was a need for ‘non-complex’ complaints to be dealt with within six months of receipt of the complaint.  Members had also questioned, notwithstanding any amendments required, whether adoption of a Local Protocol should be deferred whilst clarity on the implications of the current Localism Bill was provided.  Members had also suggested that officers should explore possible collaborative working arrangements in respect of standards matters with neighbouring local authorities.  In the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

A report by the Director of Finance set out details of the mystery shopper work undertaken to assess the quality of service at the Call Centre, Libraries and One Stop Shops which the Committee had requested at its meeting on 4 July 2011 (Minute No. 3 refers).

It was noted that the Call Centre and One Stop Shop services were rated as ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’ and the Library Service was rated as either ‘Good’ or ‘Average’.  However, it had been identified that there were a number of areas requiring staff development and that there were some key environmental concerns.  Members were told that these would now form part of the customer services development work over the coming year.

The work carried out had been successful and a rolling exercise of mystery shopping was planned across sections which would focus on customer care standards.

RESOLVED: That

(1)  the report be noted; and

(2)  Members be provided with the detail of the number of people involved in

this work.

The Committee considered a report by the Director of Finance which detailed the content of the 2010/11 Annual Review Letter, and the current performance, in this Financial Year, on response times.  The Local Government Ombudsman’s (LGO) Annual Review Letter for the year ending 31 March 2011 was appended to the report as Appendix 1.  The Annual Letter had been published in June 2011 and set out the number of complaints made to the LGO about the Council, the outcomes, how they had been dealt with and response times.

Members, on the whole were very pleased with the improvements in performance that had been made since 2009/10.  However, they noted that complaints in respect of the Children and Young Peoples and Adult Social Services Departments historically could take longer to resolve than those in other Departments.  It was proposed that some work be carried out to ascertain why the Council received so many complaints in these areas.  The Head of Benefits, Revenues and Customer Services informed the Committee that such work could be carried out by the appropriate Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

The Committee considered the comparisons in performance with the other five Merseyside Authorities (Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton and St Helens) and were delighted that Wirral had moved from sixth in 2009/10 to second only to Liverpool in 2010/11 when measured in the average days taken to respond to first enquiries. 

RESOLVED: That

(1)  the content of the report and the LGO’s Annual Review Letter be noted;

and

(2)  the staff be congratulated on their performance in comparison to the other Merseyside Authorities which has meant them moving from sixth in 2009/10 to second only to Liverpool in 2010/11 when measured in the average days taken to respond to first enquiries.

The Chair reported that he had received, by hand, some correspondence earlier in the day from the Whistleblower, Martin Morton along with a request that it be considered as Urgent Business at this evening’s meeting.

Councillors D Roberts, J Salter and P Williams declared personal and prejudicial interests in the matter now under consideration because they had been involved in Mr Morton’s complaint previously.  They left the meeting whilst this item of business was discussed.

The Chair asked the remaining Members whether they considered they would have sufficient time during the meeting to consider and digest the content of the correspondence or whether they thought it more appropriate to consider the correspondence at the next meeting of the Committee scheduled for 30 November 2011.

RESOLVED:

That Mr Morton’s correspondence be considered at the next meeting of the Committee scheduled for 30 November 2011 and he be informed of this decision.