Agenda item

Members are invited to consider the need for a new Members’ Code of Conduct and for mechanisms required to deal with alleged breaches of it and decide whether to recommend these to Council.

The Localism Act 2011 abolished, with effect from 1 July 2012, the current statutory regime for regulating Members’ standards of conduct, introduced by the Local Government Act 2000.  The report dealt with the need for a new Members’ Code of Conduct and for mechanisms required to deal with alleged breaches of it.

Members were reminded that there was a need for the new procedure to continue to reflect the Nolan Principles which had been put in place to underpin all public services.  The principle change was to give greater emphasis to “pecuniary” advantage from the more general “interests” which needed to be declared within the current system, not least because failure to declare a pecuniary advantage becomes a criminal offence.  It was being proposed that the mechanisms for considering complaints against Members should be administered by the Adjudication and Review Sub-Committee using a variation of its current procedure for hearing Stage Three complaints.  A limited range of sanctions compared with the current arrangements could be applied and it was for Members to consider how to set that out.  The Committee was informed that Ipswich had published a range of sanctions and Members might wish to consider whether or not to use part – or all – of it.

Members enquired about the use of Independent Persons (IPs) and were informed that the rules had changed – but had not yet been adequately clarified - though the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) was in the process of publishing further guidance.  Delay, however, was not an option.  The new Code would come into force and would have to be amended once further clarification had been received.

Members asked about the role of the IP and were informed that the IP’s role was not clear.  This would be addressed in time, but for the present the Council was prevented from using any of its current IPs, but had entered dialogue with Redbridge to see whether IPs could be “swapped” until the rules became clearer.

A Member asked whether there was any appeals procedure from a decision by the Panel and was informed that the route could either be to the Local Government Ombudsman or Judicial Review. 

Members enquired about the composition and scope of the panels and were informed that membership of both the Initial Assessment and Hearings panels would be drawn from the Adjudication and Review Sub-Committee.  Those councillors who sat on the one would not be eligible to sit on the other to hear the same matter.

There was some concern expressed about part of the wording and the following motions were put to the vote:

1.      That those Members who had received complaints about them should be informed of the allegation(s) and

2.      The right of the complainant to have the decision reviewed to be deleted.

Both motions were carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

That the Committee RECOMMEND to the Council that

1.            The Code of Conduct set out in Appendix 1 to this minute (subject to the agreed amendments) be adopted.

2.            The Monitoring Officer to be authorised to amend the section of the Code that dealt with interests if necessary to comply with any subsequent secondary legislation on interests.

3.      The procedure for investigating and adjudicating on alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct be adopted.