Agenda item

Future of Standards (Localism Act 2011)

Decision:

The Standards Committee:

(a) NOTED the first draft of a procedure for complaints under the new Code of Conduct which may be subject to further amendments before a finalised version was recommended for adoption;

(b) ENDORSED the proposal to delegate to the Monitoring Officer the responsibility of undertaking a joint exercise to recruit an Independent Person(s) with the other councils in Cambridgeshire, subject to the approval of Full Council;

(c) NOTED that transitional provisions were likely to be made to ensure that existing Independent Members were eligible to apply for the position of Independent Person(s) at South Cambridgeshire District Council;

(d) INDICATED that it preferred the draft Cambridgeshire Councils Model Code of Conduct to the Local Government Association Model Code of Conduct;

(e) PROVISIONALLY APPROVED the draft Cambridgeshire Model Code as the version of the Council’s new Code of Conduct for Elected Members that would be recommended to Full Council subject to a further report/amendments once the Code has been issued in its final format;

(f) NOTED that a further report would be brought to a future meeting once the Regulations were published;

(g) NOTED that it might be necessary to convene a special meeting of Full Council to comply with the statutory timescales; and

(h) AGREED that an additional meeting of Standards Committee be held on Thursday 10 May to enable recommendations to Council be able to be made.

Minutes:

The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the future of standards and the Committee considered the first drafts of the Cambridgeshire Councils Model Code of Conduct and a local assessment procedure.

Code of Conduct

The Localism Act required authorities to adopt a Code of Conduct, which must include the seven Nolan Principles of Public Life, and requirements for the registration and declaration of interests. Regulations defining the new categories of interest had yet to be published. The Localism Act used different wording for the Nolan Principles than that published in the original 2001 Order, and Councils were required to use the Localism Act wording.

The Heads of Legal Services from the Cambridgeshire authorities, including the Fire Authority and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Association of Local Councils (CAPALC) had drafted a model Code of Conduct. The aim of the Cambridgeshire Code was so all authorities operated under the same principles, to minimise confusion, particularly for dual- or triple-hatted members. The Cambridgeshire Code incorporated much of the previous Code of Conduct, which would support councillors and Monitoring Officers who could continue to refer to previous Standards for England guidance. The Standards Committee, having compared the draft Cambridgeshire Code with the draft Local Government Association (LGA) / Association for Council Secretaries and Solicitors (ACSeS) Code, preferred the Cambridgeshire Code for its precision.

Local Assessment Procedure

A draft local assessment procedure and flow chart were considered. It was confirmed by the parish council members that parish councils preferred to administer complaints made about their councillors, and agreed that the local assessment procedure would include a requirement that complaints made about parish councillors should be addressed to the parish council under their complaints process in the first instance. A complaint about a parish councillor would be considered by the District Council only once local avenues had been exhausted, in a similar manner to the operation of the Local Government Ombudsman.

The Monitoring Officer undertook to contact CAPALC about circulating to parish councils changes to standing orders which would establish a model local complaints process and how they would work in partnership with the District Council when matters had to be elevated.

Concern was expressed at the proposed amount of delegated responsibility to be placed on the Monitoring Officer to assess complaints following the new streamlined approach to assessment of complaints, as there was no longer a statutory requirement to have separate Assessment, Review and Hearings sub-committees. The first draft of an assessment procedure ensured that the view of the Independent Person would be sought and taken into account at the earliest possible stage in the process, but the final decision would ultimately rest with the Monitoring Officer, which could lead to undue pressure on that role. The Independent Person’s views would also be sought on whether to grant a request for anonymity, as it could prove impossible for a subject member to respond to an anonymous allegation.

The draft assessment process allowed the Monitoring Officer to vary the procedure at his/her discretion, including the response times for the different stages. A protocol for the Monitoring Officer to follow would also be adopted to run alongside the draft assessment procedure.