Agenda item

The Independent Chair of the Standards Committee submits a report that informs discussions of the Standards Committee on the future of the Standards framework for Leicester pending the coming into force of the Localism Bill. Members are recommended to consider and comment on the report.

The Chair submitted a report that informed discussions of the Standards Committee on the future of the Standards framework for Leicester. She reported that the Localism Act was now in place, which would allow the Committee to begin to decide what should be in place in Leicester.

She asked for Members’ opinions on the structure and composition of the Committee, including whether there should continue to be a committee. She stated that her view was that the Committee should have a stronger independent element, static membership annually, with firmly committed members who had been interviewed prior to appointment.

There was general support for retaining the Standards Committee. It was felt that the Council should retain the Standards Committee, in accordance with the comments previously made by the City Mayor, in order to maintain the highest standards across the Authority. Any members appointed to the Committee should consider it a priority.

Members considered the proportion of independent members to councillors. It was recognised that Councillors could be more likely to accept sanction from their peers, whereas the public would prefer a greater independent presence. A range of opinions were expressed, including retaining the current levels and increasing or decreasing independent membership. Members also considered the appointment of Councillors. It was generally felt that commitment and stable membership was important. Some Members agreed that an interview process would be useful, but others did not, as it would increase bureaucracy. It was suggested that any interviews should remain part of the annual Group selection processes. Members were reminded that whatever the Committee recommended, it would need to be embraced by all Council Members.

The suggestion was made that Members consider why the changes were introduced by Government, namely that they were trying to reduce bureaucracy, simplify it and make it more democratic.

Members considered how complaints could be dealt with. It was felt that it was important to retain independence in investigations, as Members were influenced by the investigators’ findings. Such investigations should only take place when necessary. Assessments and reviews were felt not to be useful. It was suggested that more appropriate ways of dealing with individuals should be investigated, such as retraining and support.

The Committee was asked to recognise how difficult the role of Independent Member was, and to consider this in any future appointments. They were urged to consider carefully the job description, person specification and advert for any future appointments.

The Monitoring Officer stated that work would be done on the implications of the Localism Act, but gave a brief overview. The requirement for a Standards Committee had been removed, but prior case law indicated that the council required a mechanism for dealing with conduct matters. The Localism Act required the Council to have an independent person outside the Committee to consult on complaints. This person could not be any of the current independent members, as they were excluded by the Localism Act. Any independent members on the committee in future were likely to be co-opted with no voting rights. There was still a need for a register of interests and a code of conduct; a criminal offence had been established to cover non-declaration of pecuniary interests. He stated, in response to questions, that the responsibility for considering sanctions lay with the Authority, but it would be free to make its own arrangements and it could delegate these decisions to the Standards Committee. Common law allowed for potential censure or removal from particular positions within the Council. It was hoped that more guidance would be provided on this matter.

Members considered issues relating to the Code of Conduct and the political conventions. The Chair suggested that a draft code be produced by the Independent Members, working with senior legal officers, based on the old one, but aligning it more to the Nolan principles. Members agreed that the Nolan principles would form a good basis and that that the code should be simplified. Concern was expressed that there would be no elected member involvement in this initial stage and it was felt that at least one should be included. It was felt that, once drafted, there should be wide consultation. The Chair felt that only a small group was required to prepare the first draft. The draft would then be circulated more widely. She also felt that the Independent Members were more equipped to draft the code, as they had experience of every complaint the Committee had dealt with. The Committee would have first look at the draft. It was suggested that officers could also be covered by the code.

It was felt that the political conventions could be considered in parallel to the code. Some concern was expressed about the current political conventions, as aspects of it disadvantaged Members as compared with the rights of residents in obtaining information.

Members considered what process could be put in place to deal with complaints against councillors. It was felt that it should be flexible and proportionate, with an emphasis on informal resolution where possible, and more could be dealt with by including a filter for vexatious or irrelevant complaints. Others could be dealt with by using a similar process as employee appeals, by having both parties in a meeting together to address the issue without lengthy investigations, allowing for each perspective to be voiced. Where investigations were required, these should be dealt with speedily. It was felt that this process could result in a reduction in frivolous complaints. It would also be fairer by allowing the subject member opportunity to defend him or herself at an earlier stage. It was stressed, however, that the process should not be used to duplicate other forms of accountability. It was also felt that an appeals process would be required.

Members were informed that the new arrangements were likely to come into effect in April 2012. Members were keen to include comprehensive consultation with other elected members before the process was agreed, to enable them to feel more ownership of it.

The City Mayor stated that he would welcome the opportunity to be further involved in the Committee’s discussions. The City Mayor then left the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That a first draft of the Code of Conduct and proposals for the consideration of complaints against councillors be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee.