Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the National Committee on Standards in Public Life.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

Nolan Committee – List of recommendations

·         The Head of Legal and Democratic Services indicated that the biggest change to the Ethical regime recommended by the Nolan Committee was for authorities to regain the power to suspend members (for up to six months) as a sanction for breaching the code, with an appeal to the Ombudsman

·         In response to a query, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services commented that in the filtering arrangements adopted by the Council, the Independent Person (IP) was usually consulted at an early stage but was not a decision-maker. It was therefore somewhat surprising that recommendation 10 was proposing that the IP would need to agree with a finding of a breach of the Code and that suspension was a proportionate sanction

·         Bearing in mind the number of councillors serving on both the county and district councils, it was vital to liaise with the district councils to ensure that any changes to the Code were consistently applied. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that a pan-Worcestershire Code of Conduct had been adopted to address this matter and this approach had found favour with representatives of the Nolan Committee. Following this meeting, he would be liaising with monitoring officers from the districts to agree any potential changes to that code.  Members of the Standards and Ethics Committee strongly supported the continuance of a joint Code

·         Recommendation 3 implied that it was the responsibility of the member to rebut the presumption that they were not acting as a councillor when making statements on publicly-accessible social media. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services added that this distinction was often not easy to make especially in relation to the use of social media. The context of a statement should be taken into account

·         In relation to recommendation 11, did the Council provide legal indemnity for IPs? The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that standing indemnities were not provided but he could not see a situation where an IP could be legally liable. In any case, IPs would be granted qualified privilege against defamation.

Nolan Committee - Best Practice recommendations

BP1

Agreed that this could be adopted and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services would try to agree a definition of bullying and harassment with the other authorities.

BP2

·         There was some concern that this recommendation was almost implying that a councillor should incriminate themselves by complying with the investigation of a complaint made against them.  There was also a danger of tit for tat complaints.

Agreed that the matter be raised by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services with the other principal authorities in the county.

BP3

Agreed that a formal Annual Review of the Code as recommended was unnecessary, but could be done by the committee itself. Any review would be undertaken as and when determined necessary by the Monitoring Officer.

BP4

Agreed that the Council already complied with this recommendation and therefore no further action was necessary.

BP5

·         It would be safe to assume that the public would expect that the Council would establish a register of gifts and hospitality. The key issue was to determine what constituted a gift under this recommendation. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that this recommendation applied to gifts received in the role as a councillor. The onus to make the declaration would rest with the councillor who could seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer where necessary.

Agreed that a Register of Gifts and Hospitality could be established ahead of any legislation, to be discussed with the other authorities.

BP6

Agreed that the Council already complied with the recommendation for the publication of the arrangements for the filtering of allegations which were available online.

BP7

Agreed that the Council already complied with this recommendation and had access to a range of IPs.

BP8

Agreed that the Council already effectively complied with this recommendation as IPs had a role in the filtering arrangements at an early stage.

PB9

·         In response to a query about the anonymisation of councillors who were the subject of a complaint, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that generally the name of a councillor would only be made public at the point where it was considered that a breach of the Code had been established.

Agreed that the Council already complied with this recommendation as the publication of formal decisions after investigation was part of the Council’s existing arrangements.

PB10

Agreed that the Council already complied with this recommendation but that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services would review the guidance on the Council’s website on how to complain, the process and timescales.

BP11 – 12

Agreed that these recommendations were not relevant.

BP13

Agreed that the Council already complied with this recommendation as arrangements were in place for managing conflicts of interest for the Monitoring Officer.

BP14

Agreed that this recommendation had limited application for this Council.

BP15

Agreed that the existing arrangements worked well without the need for additional political involvement.

RESOLVED: that

a)    the report published by the National Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Nolan Committee) following its review of standards in local government be noted;

b)   the various recommendations to Government concerning legislative change be noted;

c)    the initial views on what action the Council should take in relation to the relevant Best Practice recommendations in the Nolan report are set out above;

d)   the Monitoring Officer, having regard to those initial views, will be discussing any implications for the pan-Worcestershire Code of Conduct with the other principal authorities in the county be noted; and

e)    a further report be received following those discussions.