Meeting documents

General Purposes Committee
Tuesday, 1 May 2012

general purposes committee

MINUTES of the Meeting held in the Council Chamber, Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne on Tuesday 1 May 2012 from 7:00 pm to 8:23 pm.

Present: Councillor Pat Sandle (Chairman), Councillor Gerry Lewin (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Bowles, Derek Conway, Mike Cosgrove, Harrison, Pat Sandle, David Simmons, Roger Truelove and Worrall.

Officers Present: Philippa Davies and Mark Radford.

677  

minutes

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 31 January 2012 (Minute Nos. 506 - 508) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

 
678  

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

 
 

part a minute for confirmation by council

 
679  

the localism act 2011 - the amended standards regime

The Monitoring Officer introduced his report which set out the issues that needed to be considered as a result of the introduction of the Localism Act 2011, which amends the standards regime. He brought Members' attention to the tabled papers which provided additional information from the Department of Communities and Local Government, and an update paper setting out matters requiring variation to the original Standards Committee recommendations (21 February 2012).

The Monitoring Officer went through his report, and highlighted the eight issues that needed to be considered.

Issue One - The Council must decide whether to set up a Standards Committee, and how it is to be composed

The Monitoring Officer explained the two options of either having a Standards Committee as a Committee of the Council, to include co-option of Parish Councillors in a non-voting capacity, or a Joint Committee which would include Parish Councils, but had the potential to become over-bureaucratic. He suggested that a politically-balanced committee of eleven was a reasonable number to draw down from to provide a Hearing Panel. In response to a question, the Monitoring Officer explained that the Committee would have to be constituted, as defined by Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. It was suggested that it was sensible to have Parish Council involvement, as a significant number of complaints had been relevant to Parish Councils.

The Monitoring Officer explained that late amendments by the House of Lords had resulted in Local Authorities retaining responsibilities over standards of Parish Councils. A Member suggested that Parish and Town Councils be charged, however the Monitoring Officer advised that there was not provision to do this.

Members raised the following points: the proposals were too bureaucratic; Parish Councils should review themselves; we were operating this system for the benefit of the Parish Councils, as complaints regarding them were more frequent than complaints against Borough Councillors; Swale Borough Council should join with Mid Kent Internal Partnership to share resources with regard to the standards regime; it was frustrating as no sanctions could be made following a breach of the Code of Conduct; and the Standards Committee should be abolished and complaints referred to Full Council.

The Monitoring Officer advised that the new proposals meant that complaints would try to be resolved informally at each stage, with a Hearings Panel as a last resort. He clarified that the option of having representation from 36 Parish Councils would be very difficult and bureaucratic, but that representatives from Kent Association of Local Councils (KALC) would still be able to have an influence and could put over their point of view and provide an insight, when Parish Council issues were raised. He added that as Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 did not require Parish Council representation; the suggested proposal was a beneficial option; with input from Parish Councils, without too much bureaucracy. KALC could not be seen as a separate body, and so under Section 101 could not join with Swale Borough Council to produce voting members.

In response to questions; the Monitoring Officer advised that as Local Authorities in Kent had individual standards regimes, it was not possible to join a partnership in this case. He also advised that Parish Councils could not be 'forced' to accept recommendations made to them, but it was hoped that in the future within their Standing Orders, Parish Councils would accept recommendations made by the Standards Committee.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Standards Committee comprises of 11 Members and have three non-voting co-opted Parish representatives to be nominated in a similar way to the current representatives of existing Standards Committee.
(2) That a Hearings Panels be appointed comprising of three Members drawn from the membership of the Standards Committee.
 
 

Issue Two - The Council has to decide what it will include in its Code of Conduct

The Monitoring Officer reported that the Code of Conduct set out in Appendix 4 of the report, would be supplemented by Annex B on the tabled paper. He advised that it was not yet known what the regulations were in relation to what was classified as disclosable pecuniary interests.

Members raised the following points with regard to when it was necessary to declare an interest, especially with regard to not needing to declare it, if it had already been registered, and that there appeared to be less of an obligation to declare an interest; sometimes there had been over-cautious, excessive declarations of interest; the new regulations might make it appear that the regime has become more lapse; and hopes that the years of improvement of standards would not be reversed.

The Monitoring Officer explained that if the interest was not a financial one, and it was already on the register, then there was no need to declare it. This would become clearer when the guidance on pecuniary interests had been published.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Council adopt the Code of Code of Conduct with effect from 1 July 2012.
(2) That, when the Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) Regulations are published, the Monitoring Officer, after consultation with the Chair of Standards Committee and the Leader, add to that draft Code provisions which he considers to be appropriate for the registration and disclosure of interests other than DPIs.
 
 

Issue Three - The Council has to decide what 'arrangements' it will adopt for dealing with standards complaints and for taking action where a Member is found to have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct

The Monitoring Officer advised that Recommendation Two agreed at the Standards Committee was now historical, as there had been further developments and discussions had taken place with Parish Councils. The Monitoring Officer would report back to them with updates from this meeting.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to prepare and submit to Council for approval 'arrangements' as follows -

(a) That the Monitoring Officer be appointed as the Proper Officer to receive complaints of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct;

(b) That the Monitoring Officer be given delegated power, after consultation with the Independent Person, to determine whether a complaint merits formal investigation and to arrange such investigation. He be instructed to seek resolution of complaints without formal investigation wherever practicable, and that he be given discretion to refer decisions on investigation to the Standards Committee where he feels that it is inappropriate for him to take the decision, and to report regularly to the Standards Committee on the discharge of this function;

(c) That where the investigation finds no evidence of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer be instructed to close the matter, providing a copy of the report and findings of the investigation to the complainant and to the Member concerned, and to the Independent Person, and reporting the findings to the Standards Committee for information;

(d) That where the investigation finds evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person, be authorised to seek local resolution to the satisfaction of the complainant in appropriate cases, with a summary report for information to the Standards Committee. Where such local resolution is not appropriate or not possible, he is to report the investigation findings to a Hearings Panel of the Standards Committee for local hearing;

(e) That Council delegate to Hearings Panels such of its powers as can be delegated to take decisions in respect of a Member who is found on hearing to have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, such actions to include:

1. Reporting its findings to Council [or to the Parish Council] for information;

2. Recommending to the Member's Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped Members, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council;

3. Recommending to the Leader of the Council that the Member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities;

4. Instructing the Monitoring Officer to [or recommend that the Parish Council] arrange training for the Member;

5. Removing [or recommend to the Parish Council that the Member be removed] from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority [or by the Parish Council];

6. Withdrawing [or recommend to the Parish Council that it withdraws] facilities provided to the Member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and Internet access; or

7. Excluding [or recommend that the Parish Council exclude] the Member from the Council's offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, Committee and Sub-Committee meetings.
 
 

Issue Four - How many Independent Persons were required?

The Monitoring Officer advised that recent guidance had indicated that contrary to previous indications, current Independent Members could apply to be an Independent Person. He advised that the Chairman of the Standards Committee could not therefore be part of the selection process as he may also be an applicant. The Monitoring Officer therefore suggested that he and the Leader carried out the interview process and made recommendations to Council. He confirmed that the Independent Person would not have the same role as the current Independent Member; he would not be a member of the Standards Committee, but would be invited in an observing, non-voting role.

Discussion ensued on remuneration to be given to the Independent Person. Some Members suggested there should be no financial incentive, and others considered £500 per year was appropriate.

Members supported the option for no payment for the Independent Person, only reasonable expenses.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the initial allowances and expenses for the Independent Person and any Reserve Independent Persons are set on a travelling and subsistence expenses only basis, and this function subsequently be delegated to the Standards Committee.
(2) That the Monitoring Officer advertises a vacancy of the appointment of one Independent Person and two Reserve Independent Persons.
(3) That an Interview panel comprising the Leader and the Monitoring Officer be set up to shortlist and interview candidates, and to make a recommendation to Council for appointment.
 
 

Issue Five - Preparation of the Registers

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that guidance on disclosure pecuniary interests would clarify the situation.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer prepare and maintain a new register of Members interests to comply with the requirements of the Act and of the Council's Code of Conduct, once adopted, and ensure that it was available for inspection as required by the Act;
(2) That the Monitoring Officer ensures that all Members were informed of their duty to register interests;
(3) That the Monitoring Officer prepare and maintain new registers of Members' interests for each Parish Council to comply with the Act and any Code of Conduct adopted by each Parish Council and ensure that it was available for inspection as required by the Act; and
(4) That the Monitoring Officer arranges to inform and train Parish Clerks on the new registration arrangements.
 
 

Issue Six - What Standing Order should the Council adopt in respect of withdrawal from meetings for interests?

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to recommend to Council a Procedure Rule which equates to the current Code of Conduct requirement that a Member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of business in which he/she has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, except where he/she is permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.
 
 

Issue Seven - In what circumstances should Procedure Rules exclude single Members from attending meetings while the matter in which they have a DPI is being discussed or voted upon?

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That in respect of single Member decisions, the Monitoring Officer be instructed to recommend to Council a Procedure Rule which equates to the current Code of Conduct requirement that a Member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of business in which he/she has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, except where he is permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.
 
 

Issue Eight - What arrangements would be appropriate for granting dispensations?

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That Council delegate the power to grant dispensations:

1. on Grounds:

(a) That so many Members of the decision-making body have Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter that it would 'impede the transaction of the business'. In practice this means that the decision-making body would be inquorate as a result; or

(b) That, without a dispensation, no Member of the Cabinet would be able to participate on this matter (so, the assumption is that, where the Cabinet would be inquorate as a result, the matter can then be dealt with by an individual Cabinet Member. It will be necessary to make provision in the scheme of delegations from the Leader to cover this, admittedly unlikely, eventuality) to the Monitoring Officer with an appeal to Standards Committee, and

2. on Grounds:

(a) That, without the dispensation, the representation of different political groups on the body transacting the business would be so upset as to alter the outcome of any vote on the matter. This assumes that Members are predetermined to vote on party lines on the matter, in which case, it would be inappropriate to grant a dispensation to enable them to participate; or

(b) That the authority considers that the dispensation is in the interests of persons living in the authority's area; or

(c) That the authority considers that it is otherwise appropriate to grant a dispensation to the Standards Committee, after consultation with the Independent Person.
 
 

A Member raised some concerns with the process of the regime in place at the moment. The Monitoring Officer explained that the new arrangements should address the points that were raised.

 
All Minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the Committee/Panel

View the Agenda for this meeting