Agenda item

The Chair will lead a discussion on the future Standards framework for Leicester.

The Chair reminded the Committee that the draft report outlining the new standards arrangements that the Council was required to put in place following the coming in to force of the Localism Act 2011 had been circulated by the Monitoring Officer as a draft for discussion purposes.

The Monitoring Officer advised that he had already received comments on this report from Councillor Willmott.  These are attached at the end of these minutes for information.

The Monitoring Officer then reminded Members that the new standards arrangements would now come in to effect on 1 July 2012, (not 1 April 2012 as originally proposed).  This meant that the current Independent Members of this Committee could remain in post until the new regime started (ie, until 30 June 2012). 

However, this would require the members concerned to be reappointed at the Council’s Annual Meeting.  It was explained that there were indications that the government was now considering introducing some transitional regulations that would enable existing Independent Members whose term of office had come to an end to be re-appointed as an Independent Person for a limited period of time.  In the absence of any transitional regulations, the Council would need to appoint at least one Independent Person, whose appointment would need to be approved by Council

It was likely that the new code would be based on a document that was being prepared by the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors.  However, it was known that many Councillors nationally were not comfortable with the proposals being made.  For example, under the current system, a subject member could appeal against the findings of inquiries in to their conduct to a tribunal, but no provision for this was made under the new system. 

It was recognised that the Council could keep parts of the previous system in place and would aim to balance the membership of whichever body was undertaking hearings and processes.  Advice on processes would continue to be given to Members before hearings when needed.

The following points were then made in discussion:-

·           A clear procedure, including timescales, would need to be put in place for the receipt and processing of complaints against Councillors.  This could be based on the current procedure;

·           The need for three independent persons was questioned, as the Standards Committee had not had a large workload in the past.  It also was suggested that having a higher number of independent persons would pass responsibility to unelected officials, which it was felt was contrary to the government’s aims.  In reply, it was noted that three had been suggested as the City Council was a large authority and this was the current number of Independent Members, which seemed to work well.  Other possibilities could be considered though, such as having one Independent Person with one other as a substitute or reserve member;

·           Under the new system, the Independent Person would no longer be a member of any new Standards Committee, although they could attend meetings.  They would not have any voting rights;

·           It did not seem appropriate for an independent person to be a practising lawyer, but it could be useful if they had knowledge of local government;

·           It did not seem fair that complaints against Councillors who were not in a political group should be considered by the whole Council, while other complaints were not.  Everyone within the scope of the standards regime should be treated the same, to ensure consistency and transparency;

·           If the Committee had to refer matters to the City Mayor the Committee could lose its neutrality and give the appearance of hiding issues.  It therefore was important that a clear message was given that the Committee operated independently;

·           It was suggested that the Council should “get it right first time” when considering complaints against Councillors, so an appeals process should not be needed.  Alternatively, instead of continuing the current system of assessment, review and hearing sub-committees, the committee could hold meetings in the style of a “mini hearing”, so that a response to a complaint was given and received straight away.  However, other Members felt that appeals, (or a review of a decision as a minimum), should be possible for all parties;

·           Reviewing the original decision of a complaint hearing would be preferable to allowing an appeal, or new hearing.  This would make it clear that new information would not be considered and would be a quicker system than holding new assessments;

·           A full investigation would not be needed for every case, but where it was needed it should be done independently.  If it was not done independently, the Committee would be both investigating and judging cases;

·           It should be possible to apply sanctions to the City Mayor, as well as to Councillors.  It was noted that the power of suspension would no longer be available;

·           Care needed to be taken to ensure that procedures did not become the focus of the new framework; the aim should be to ensure that someone realised what was inappropriate about their actions and so changed their behaviour at some level;

·           Care also was needed to ensure that procedures did not become too complicated.  For example, they needed to cover complaints arising from situations such as misunderstandings to serious breaches of codes of conduct and so should be suitable for use in each situation.  This also could avoid the system becoming expensive to operate;

·           Confidence in the new system needed to be developed.  For example, as well as making sure the process was appropriate, people also needed to be confident that they did not have to put up with a situation; and

·           Procedures available to resolve a matter before it was submitted as a formal complaint could be publicised more widely, (for example, political group discipline).

The Committee understood that the new arrangement needed to be in place by 30 June 2012, which meant that information on the required processes, (for example, the appointment of Independent Persons and the adoption of the new code of conduct), would need to be made available in the near future. 

A draft complaints process should be considered before it was adopted and this also should be shown to appropriate partners for comment.  An additional meeting of the Committee could be held to initiate this.

RESOLVED:

1)     that the Council be requested to enable the current members and independent members of the Standards Committee to continue in office until the new arrangements are introduced, to ensure continuity in the Committee’s work;

2)     that the outstanding hearing to consider the investigator’s findings in to a complaint against a Councillor be processed as quickly as possible;

3)     that the Acting City Solicitor be asked to circulate the draft regulations relating to the new standards arrangements as soon as they are received;

4)     that the Acting City Solicitor be asked to determine whether any provision exists in the draft regulations regarding the form that hearings in to complaints should take and whether this includes provision for appeals;

5)     that an additional meeting of the Standards Committee be held in April 2012 to consider the first draft of a new Code of Conduct for members of the City Council, including a procedure for processing complaints made against Councillors; and

6)     that the draft Code of Practice proposed by the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors be submitted to the meeting referred to under 5) above for consideration.