The Monitoring Officer advised that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in recognition that robust standards arrangements are needed to safeguard local democracy, maintain high standards of conduct, and to protect ethical practice in local government, had launched a consultation exercise to inform their review of local government ethical standards. 

The terms of reference for the review are to:

·  examine the structures, processes and practices in local government in England for:

o  maintaining codes of conduct for local councillors

o  investigating alleged breaches fairly and with due process

o  enforcing codes and imposing sanctions for misconduct

o  declaring interests and managing conflicts of interest

o  whistleblowing

·  assess whether the existing structures, processes and practices are conducive to high standards of conduct in local government

·  make any recommendations for how they can be improved

·  note any evidence of intimidation of councillors, and make recommendations for any measures that could be put in place to prevent and address such intimidation

The Committee gave consideration to the formal consultation document, appended to the submitted report, and the following comments and observations made –

Structures, processes and practices - The Committee considered that structures and procedures were considered to be working to ensure high standards of conduct, though there were concerns about sanctions and timescales, both matters considered under later sections.

Codes of conduct – The Monitoring Officer advised that legislation gave considerable freedom with regard to content of a Code of Conduct.  The Wirral Council Code was comprehensive, following the former Model; this was not the case elsewhere and some Codes contained little more than the Nolan principles.  The Committee agreed that the Council’s Code was extensive, and the approach should be a model followed by all Authorities.

Members agreed that the Code was something that should be included in Member induction, but that the way this was presented needed to be checked given the amount of material available to new members.  Refresher training for all Members should also be required on a periodic basis.

Investigations and decisions on allegations - The Committee considered that the investigation procedure required timescales which ensure prompt consideration and that could be rigorously applied, noting that in instances where the subject member prevaricated or did not respond the timescales for dealing with a complaint became unreasonably long.  It was however noted that a timescale should not be imposed that might allow allegations to be ruled out of order because they were not dealt with; if personal circumstances did not allow for a speedy consideration  this should be accommodated.

It was noted that the only timescale applying was when notifying the subject member of the receipt of a complaint.  Thereafter, timescales were discretionary.  It was suggested that deadlines for each stage should be specified and take no more than six months, and that should a subject member be not compliant with timescales, the Standards Panel should have the ability to hear the case without them.

With regard to the role of the Independent Person, the Committee considered that their role had been invaluable.  Having sought advice from the Independent Persons in attendance and concurring that the role and opinions of the Independent Person must be sought and taken into account, the Committee would not seek voting rights for the Independent Persons.

With regard to the role of the Monitoring Officer and following queries of Members regarding potential conflicts of roles and risks, the Chair invited observations from the Monitoring Officer.  The Committee was advised that conflicts of role could arise, noting that the Monitoring Officer could not be investigator and advisor, but it was considered that the Council had sufficient safeguards in this regard.  It was acknowledged that undue pressure on Monitoring Officer’s had occurred at certain authorities, but the Council had retained certain safeguards and Monitoring Officers retained a statutory right to demand appropriate resources to undertake their role.  There were issues of job protection, it being noted that employment protection for the Head of Paid Services, Chief Finance Officer and Monitoring Officer had been watered down by recent legislation.  A Monitoring Officer Protocol that described the role of the Monitoring Officer and how they go about their role gave some assurance, and the Committee concurred that adoption of a Monitoring Officer Protocol should be recommended. 

Sanctions - The Committee considered that existing sanctions had proved adequate for normal cases, but additional options were needed for more serious breaches of the Code of Conduct or where a subject member did not engage with the current sanctions applied.  Members considered that options to either remove a subject Member from committees or outside bodies, or to suspend a Member, would give the process real teeth. 

The Committee considered whether such additional powers should lie with this Committee or with the full Council.  It was noted that the Council’s current Panel had operated in a non-partisan manner and that the Panel had the benefit of advice from the Independent Person, which would not be the case should the decision lie with the Council.  The Committee considered that the decision should remain with the Panel.

Declaring interests and conflicts of interest - The Committee considered that the Council’s existing arrangements for declaration of councillors’ interests and management of conflicts of interest were satisfactory. 

The Monitoring Officer noted that the Council’s arrangements covered both the statutory disclosure of pecuniary interests and a range of other interests, such as personal and prejudicial interests brought over from the previous standards regime, to cover potential situations of bias or conflict of interest.  It was noted that not all authorities had done so, and the Committee considered that this Council’s approach should be recommended.

Whistleblowing - The Committee noted that much work had been done on whistleblowing and considered that the Council’s arrangements were satisfactory.

Improving standards – Members agreed the importance of training to increase and improve knowledge on conduct and ethical issues, and would recommend that for all local authorities the code of conduct form part of  Councillor induction processes, followed thereafter by two-yearly training or refresher sessions.  With regard to the contribution of central government, the Committee would wish to see local authorities being given the powers to deal with conduct issues appropriately, such as those suggested elsewhere in this consideration.

Intimidation of local councillors – Members commented on the need for guidance around this issue, as there appeared no route other than going to the Police with concerns; it was suggested the Police might not necessarily view such referrals as priority as councillors had voluntarily put themselves into the public domain.  It was noted that elected members needed to be accessible, for example through surgeries, but using personal phones and email and having addresses in the public domain could make Councillors and their families vulnerable and had on occasion left them open to abuse.  All local authorities needed to consider how this might be mitigated and what facilities might be provided by a council to address intimidation and identified concerns.  The Committee agreed it be recommended that all local authorities should be have the necessary powers and resource to address these concerns, including provision of the equivalent legal, professional and emotional support that was available to Council employees.

RESOLVED:

That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to respond to the consultation being undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life reflecting the considerations given by this Committee and minuted above.