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 light of these considerations the Committee had resolved:

‘That this matter be deferred for a further report to a future meeting of the Committee in order that amendments to the protocol can be made to address

(i)  the need for greater clarity on timescales;

(ii)  the implications of the Localism Bill; and

(iii) if possible, any collaborative working arrangements with neighbouring

Councils.’

This Local Protocol had not been referred back to this Committee because of the uncertainties as to the future of the Standards regime under the Localism Bill.  However because of the continuing concerns being raised by Members about delay the Committee was again recommended to consider adopting a Local Protocol with immediate effect.  The Director emphasised that, if it did this it would ensure that there was in place, a clear timescale for progressing complaints. A revised draft Local Protocol was attached at Appendix 2 to the report and reflected the Committee’s comments on the original document.

The Committee was informed that the Scrutiny Programme Board had requested that details of all complaints received in pursuance of the revised ethical framework be provided and that this had been done at the Board’s meeting on 8 September 2011 in table form, substantially as in Appendix 1 to the report.  The Board had consequently resolved:

“(1)  That the Scrutiny Programme Board is alarmed and disappointed to note the amount of time it is  taking to determine Standards complaints, with some complaints taking almost two years to complete, and believes that this is unfair to both complainants and to those complained against.

(2)  That the Scrutiny Programme Board is also concerned about the amount of time being taken from the registration of a complaint to allocating to an Initial Assessment Panel and notes that, in one reported case this was in excess of 16 weeks.

(3)  That the Scrutiny Programme Board is aware that individual Members of the Council as well as the Standards Committee have made repeated representations to the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management and his Department about their concerns because of delays and have asked for the process to be speeded up.

(4)   That the Scrutiny Programme Board notes that despite repeated requests to the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, no apparent improvements have been made to the way in which Standards complaints are being handled and unacceptable delays are still being allowed to occur.

(5)   That the summary of complaints received by the Council, set out in the appendix to the report now submitted, in relation to alleged breaches of the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct, be noted.

(6)   That the Standards Committee be recommended to put in place proper timescales and a monitoring regime for dealing with complaints.”

It was also reported that the Board had requested some additional information which had been incorporated in a revised table. This was circulated electronically after the meeting and incorporated in Appendix 1 to the report.

The Committee had previously suggested that officers should explore possible collaborative working arrangements concerning standards matters with neighbouring local authorities.  It was reported that discussions had taken place at officer level with Chester and Cheshire West Council and two current matters (three complaints) were now being investigated by a solicitor from that authority.

Members once again expressed their dissatisfaction over the length of time it was taking to deal with Member complaints.  They made reference to the various delays that had occurred throughout the process and informed that they considered this to be appalling.

The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management was in attendance at the meeting and acknowledged that the timescales for dealing with Member complaints had been unacceptable.  He informed that the scale of resources available for this work area was modest but acknowledged that he was unable to justify the levels of delay.  He apologised unreservedly, promised to bring about improvements and recommended that the revised Local Protocol on Local Assessment and Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct be adopted to assist this by setting clear timescales to be adhered to in future.  He pointed out that the revision to this Protocol set out an over-arching paragraph which stated that a complaint would normally be dealt with within six months; but that if this was not possible then the Chair and Group Spokespersons would be informed of the reasons and kept updated as to progress.

A proposal was put forward to reallocate responsibility of dealing with Member complaints.  The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management explained that part of his Monitoring Officer role was to handle such complaints and this would require a decision by Council.  Accordingly, to do what was proposed would mean relieving him of his Monitoring Officer role.  He told the Committee that he would now leave the meeting whilst Members discussed this proposal in detail and did so.

The Committee was advised that there were various legal issues that needed to be considered in relation to the proposal and such issues should be before them before they considered the proposal.

After substantial deliberations it was

RESOLVED: That this Committee

(1)  is alarmed and disappointed to note the amount of time it is taking to determine standards complaints, with some complaints, with some complaints taking almost two years to complete, and believes that this is unfair to both complainants and those complained against;

(2)  is also concerned about the amount of time it is taking from the registration of a complaint to allocating it to an Initial Assessment Panel and notes that in one reported case this was in excess of 16 weeks;

(3)  is aware that individual Members of the Council as well as Members of this and previous   Standards Committees have made repeated representations to the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management and his Department about their concerns because of delays and asked for the process to be speeded up;

(4)  notes that despite repeated requests to the Director of Law, HR and Asset   Management no apparent improvements have been made to the way in which standards complaints are being handled and unacceptable delays are still allowed to occur;

(5)  therefore believes that a new approach is required in order to bring about a radical change to the way standards complaints are handled in order to bring about a much more efficient and speedy way in handling and bringing them to a conclusion;

(6)  notes the summary of the complaints received by the Council, set out at Appendix 1 to the report, in relation to alleged breaches of the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct;

(7)  requires the information set out in Appendix 1 to the report to be updated for and reported to all of its future meetings; and

(8)  adopts the amended draft Local Protocol on Local Assessment and Investigation of Allegations of Misconduct, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report with immediate effect, to ensure that there is in place a clear timescale for progressing complaints.