Agenda item

Report number DLS61 by the Monitoring Officer.

(Enclosure)

Decision:

That the Monitoring Officer writes on behalf of the Standards Committee to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in response to the Government Discussion Paper on Standards of Conduct in English Local Government expressing the Committee’s agreement with the essence of the document, but reservations on matters that require further clarification.

The Chairman presented report DLS61 by the Monitoring Officer which outlined the vision for a future comprehensive conduct regime for local authority members and employees as per the Government Discussion Paper on Standards of Conduct in English Local Government: the Future. This had been produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It was noted that in paragraph 23 of report DLS61, “muted” needed amending to “mooted”.

The paper had recommended that Standards Committees have independent Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen. It was promising that this was already in place at South Kesteven. The Chairman added that it was important that elected members outnumber the independent members on the committee to ensure a majority with appropriate local government experience. This, however, was disputed by a member who suggested that public perception might be that there could be bias when other elected members were under investigation.

It had been proposed that initial assessments of all misconduct allegations would be undertaken by the Standards Committee and not the Standards Board. One member suggested that there could be a risk here that decisions by the committee could be influenced by expediency. There was also concern that the committee, having a majority of elected members, could be perceived to be biased. Other members suggested that being judged by one’s peers was appropriate because if there were not a sufficient number of elected members deciding on an allegation, it could be seen to be undemocratic. Also, non-elected members may not necessarily understand the role, requirements and circumstances of being a councillor.

The committee discussed at length further implications for local assessment, investigation and determination. The Monitoring Officer suggested how the proposals could work practically. He was glad that initial assessment would be undertaken by the committee as this would give a better impression to the public and not put an individual officer at risk. One member suggested that given the experience of the Standards Board and the case examples they could access, they were the more appropriate organisation to make the initial assessment. This view was not common to the committee. Another member drew attention to the fact that if initial assessments were made by the committee, this would be in the public domain and therefore not fair to the individual were the complaint to be dismissed. The committee then considered whether or not, given that they would be privy to information prior to a hearing, they would be prejudiced against determining a complaint. Possible solutions to this problem were discussed, but it was suggested that this issue be raised in response to the paper and government guidance awaited.

Another major issue was resources for the increased activity of the Standards Committee. Although only the most serious allegations would be investigated, the Monitoring Officer advised on the high level of work involved in an investigation. It was suggested that the government needed reminding that it could not always rely on the goodwill and availability of volunteers for Standards Committees. The Council also needed to be aware of the potential costs.

The Monitoring Officer pointed out the new proposals to include an offence of bullying. This would require a redefinition of “friend” and “close personal associate”, although no further details were provided in the paper. It had also been proposed that the threshold for gifts would remain the same and the hospitality book would be available for public inspection. The committee considered this to be a sensible approach.

The committee briefly discussed politically restricted posts for council employees. The impression from the paper was that the government was looking to reduce the number of posts. This, however, was not clear and therefore clarity was required.