Meeting documents

The Committee considered a report of the Monitoring Officer (MO) on the recommendations made by the Committee of Standards in Public Life (CSPL) following their review on local government ethical standards. The Committee’s recommendations were in full at Appendix 1 to the report. The following key points were highlighted:

 

·         Councillor register of interest forms were up to date, and Members were able to update their interests via the Extranet or by contacting Democratic Services.

 

·         The Council kept a record of Town and Parish Councillor register of interests which had been largely complied with. Democratic Services reminded Clerks regularly to provide up to date register of interest forms for their Town/ Parish Councillors. These forms were published on the District and relevant Town/ Parish website.

 

·         Some of the key recommendations of the CSPL were highlighted at section 3.5 of the Monitoring Officer’s report.

 

·         The CSPL found that the majority of Councillors and officer’s maintain high standards of conduct.

 

·         Where there was misconduct, this was usually due to social media use, bullying and harassment.

 

·         There was considerable variation in codes of conduct nationally, and some of the codes failed to adequately address social media, bullying, harassment or other disruptive behaviour.

 

·         The role of the Independent Person was an important safeguard in the current system, and the CSPL felt that the role should be strengthened and clarified.

 

·         The currents sanctions available to Local Authorities were deemed insufficient by the CSPL.

 

·         The CSPL made 26 recommendations largely directed at central government as legislation would be required to make the changes.

 

·         A national model code of conduct was suggested to ensure consistency in codes nationally. This was previously a requirement under the Local Government Act 2000, repealed by the 2011 Localism Act which gave authorities discretion over wording.

·         The CSPL recommended that the current rules on declaring interests be repealed and replaced with an objective test. It was noted that Scotland and Wales have this provision.

 

·         Further, that Councils be given discretion to establish standards committees with voting Independent Members and voting Members from dependant Parishes. The 2011 Localism Act repealed a similar requirement in the Local Government Act 2000.

 

·         It was recommended that powers to suspend councillors be given back to Councils for a period of up to 6 months and with agreement of the Independent Person. Councillors should be given the right of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

·         Parish Councils should be required to adopt the code of their principle authority (or the new model code).

 

·         Monitoring Officers should be provided with adequate training, support and resources to undertake their role.

 

·         Town and Parish Clerks should hold an appropriate qualification.

 

·         Some of the recommendations were aimed at political groups; asking them to set clear expectations of their Members, and require Members to attend code of conduct training.

 

It was reported that a recommendation of a previous CSPL report on Intimidation in Public Life had now been implemented by the government, who had recently changed the rules that apply to local government elections. A Candidate or Councillor’s home address was no longer required to be in the public domain during the election process.

 

The CSPL’s best practice recommendations were detailed in the table at 3.6 of the report, reviewed and given a RAG status by the MO. It was noted that the gifts and hospitality register was not published quarterly as very few entries were made in the register.

 

Members were asked to consider whether formal standards complaints about the conduct of a Parish Councillor towards a Clerk should be made by the Chairman or Parish Council as a whole, rather than the Clerk in all but exceptional circumstances. However, Members felt that introducing this element into the complaints procedure could make the process of making a complaint more difficult for Clerks, and dissuade them from making formal complaints. The Audit and Standards Committee agreed that this recommendation should not be taken forward.

 

A question was asked as to how the Council audits the standards and performance of Council departments, and it was noted that the audit assurance for these issues was covered by compliance with the Code of Corporate Governance covered under agenda item 11. The Chairman advised that the Council’s performance is regularly reviewed by the Resources and Services Overview Committees.

 

RESOLVED:

 

to note the current position and the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in their report on ethical standards in local government.