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.

Councillors A Bridson and D Roberts declared a personal and prejudicial interest in exempt Item No. 5 on the agenda – Correspondence received by the Chair.  (Minute No. 21 refers)  This was by virtue of them being the subjects of the complaint.  They indicated that they would be leaving the meeting whilst this matter was under discussion.

Councillor G Ellis declared a personal and prejudicial interest in exempt Item No. 5 on the agenda – Correspondence received by the Chair.  (Minute No. 21 refers)  This was by virtue of him being named in the correspondence.  He indicated that he would be seeking advice with a view to leaving the meeting whilst this matter was under discussion.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 September 2011 as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 29 September 2012 be confirmed as a correct record.

On the 15 November 2011, the Localism Bill received Royal Assent and became the Localism Act 2011 (“the Localism Act”). The relevant provisions relating to standards matters were set out in Chapter 7 and Schedule 4 of the Localism Act.

A report by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management provided an update in respect of the implications of the Localism Act 2011 on the current Standards regime.

The Committee was informed that the Coalition Agreement ‘Our Programme for Government’ included the commitment to “abolish the Standards Board regime”.  The Government had stated that it considered the Standards regime, consisting of a centrally prescribed model code of conduct, standards committees with the power to suspend a Council Member and regulated by a central quango, was inconsistent with the principles of localism and that the regime could be a vehicle for vexatious or politically motivated complaints.

Appended to the Director’s report at Appendix 1 was an Explanatory Note detailing the key implications of the Localism Act on the Standards Regime. It was noted that the changes introduced by the Act concerning the standards regime were expected to take effect from 1 July 2012. On the 23 December 2011 the Local Government Lawyer reported that, in a letter to the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors (ACSeS), the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had written that while the Standards Board for England would cease to regulate Member standards from the 31 January 2012, “we envisage that the remaining local elements of the current regime, including statutory standards committees with the power to suspend councillors, will be abolished on 1 July 2012”.

In the same letter, the DCLG had responded to concerns expressed by ACSeS that the original proposed implementation date of 1 April 2012 for the new local government standards regime was impracticable, in part due to the timing of the local Council elections and meetings in spring. The DCLG had advised ACSeS that from 1 July onward, all local government standards matters (including the consideration and determination of outstanding complaints made during the period the Standards Board regime was operating), would become the responsibility of Councils and would be dealt with under the new arrangements imposed by the Localism Act.

The Committee noted that the DCLG’s decision to delay the implementation of the new local government standards Regime until the 1 July 2012 meant that the Government had more time to prepare the outstanding regulations defining what constituted a “disclosable pecuniary interest” as required by Section 30(3) of the Localism Act. In its letter to ACSeS, the DCLG advised that it recognised that Councils would need sufficient time to “advertise for and then appoint an “independent person” and put in place arrangements for handling allegations of breaches of their code, and principal authorities will have to put in place, and agree, arrangements with parish councils for both a code and register of interest related activity”.

Appendix 2 to the Director’s report set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Further to Minute No. 12 of the last meeting of the Committee held on 29 September 2011 the Committee considered a report by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management which provided Members with a summary at Appendix 1 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 a total of five complaints were outstanding.  Two Standards Panel meetings had been held on 24 January 2012 and decision notices in respect of them were being prepared.

RESOLVED:

That the updated summary of standards complaints attached at Appendix 1 to the report be noted.

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 paragraph 7C of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) (by regulation 8(6) of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008) to that Act.  The Public Interest test has been applied and favours exclusion.

To follow

Councillors A Bridson and D Roberts left the meeting whilst this item of business was considered.  Councillor G Ellis indicated his intention to leave the meeting but before doing so sought further clarification, from the Head of Legal & Member Services, on whether his particular interest was in fact personal and prejudicial.  Following some discussion Councillor G Ellis also left the meeting whilst this item of business was under discussion.

The Committee considered the letters provided by Mr M Morton; one dated 17 July and the other hand delivered to Brian Cummings (Independent Committee Member at the time) on 29 September 2011, relating to complaints made by Mr Morton against particular Council Members, the manner in which his complaints had been dealt with and what further action/steps should be taken by the Council’s Standards Committee.

The Head of Legal & Member Services advised Members that there was a jurisdictional issue that needed to be considered in relation to the matters raised by Mr Morton in his letters.

The Committee was advised that all the complaints lodged by Mr Morton against the Council Members in question were considered by the Committee’s Initial Assessment Panel who had subsequently referred them to Standards for England for consideration. The complaints were considered by Mr Bannister of Standards for England, who determined that no further action be taken in respect of each complaint. The notices confirming Standards for England’s decision was dated 17 July 2011.

Mr Bannister, in the decision notices had commented that “it may be for the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Standards Committee to examine the findings of the investigation into the charging policy when (it) concludes and then consider the role of individual members”.

Mr Morton requested that the Committee resolve at its meeting that the comment made by Mr Bannister (referred to above) be “acted upon” and that “the conduct of Councillors McLaughlin, Roberts, Bridson and Williams is considered following the completion of the Independent Review undertaken by Anna Klonowski”.

The Head of Legal & Member Services advised that all complaints alleging a potential breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct must be dealt with in accordance with the current standards regime/framework. Under this regime/framework, all such complaints must be referred to an Initial Assessment Panel who decided the course of action (which was specifically defined) to be taken. With regards Mr Morton’s complaints, the Initial Assessment Panel referred all his complaints made to Standards for England who, after consideration of all the information provided, determined that no further action be taken in relation to the complaints.

The Head of Legal & Member Services advised that under the current standards regime/framework there was no appeal or other review provision available to a complainant where Standards for England had determined that no further action be taken in relation to a particular complaint following a referral by an Initial Assessment Panel.  Where a complainant was dissatisfied with a decision of Standards for England, the complainant should consider seeking redress through Judicial Review. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.