Agenda item

This report provides an annual review of the complaints received under the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints procedure.

Biancia Robinson, Senior Constitutional & Governance Lawyer, introduced a report from the Corporate Director Law & Governance providing an annual review of the complaints received pursuant to the Complaints Procedure and a review of the Members’ Code of Conduct.  The report also provided details on a current government consultation seeking views on potential changes to the current standards regime.

In considering the report the Committee noted:

·             The summary of complaints received in the last 12 months, as detailed in section 3.5 and Appendix A of the report.  During this period, the Corporate Director Law & Governance, as Monitoring Officer, had received and made determinations regarding six councillors allegedly in breach of the Members Code of Conduct.  Of these complaints, two have been resolved at the Initial Assessment Stage, three have been resolved at the Assessment Criteria Stage and one was still under investigation.  In terms of outcomes, two complaints had been upheld as a breach of the Code, two had been subject to review requests which had not been upheld, and one had been escalated to the formal investigation stage (at the request of the Councillor).

·             The overview of the complaints procedure provided within section 3 of the report and consistency produced as a result of the detailed procedure and assessment criteria.

·             The outline of trends identified (following a request made during consideration of the previous Annual Complaints report) in relation to complaints and outcomes, as detailed with section 3.11 – 3.13 of the report.  These had included:

Ø   The increase in one of the main findings at Initial Assessment Stage over the past 12 months being that the Councillor “was not acting in their capacity as councillor”.  Members were advised that the Code currently only permitted the investigation of complaints against Members made in their “official capacity or when giving the impression [they] are acting as a member of the Council”, unless the matter related to a serious criminal offence being committed in the Member's private capacity, meaning that any decision which purported to find a breach of the Code whilst the member was acting in their private capacity being liable to challenge.  It was felt this trend reflected a change in public expectations, with the possibility to extend the scope of the Code to include some categories of behaviour outside members role as a councillor having also been included as an element of the government’s current consultation on the standards regime.

Ø   The other main reason identified for complaints not proceeding beyond initial assessment stage was that the complaint ‘’did not disclose sufficiently serious potential breaches of the Code to merit further consideration”. The main rationale for this finding had involved insufficient evidence being submitted to support the allegations made and/or when considering the allegations in context, there was no significant evidence to suggest the Councillors had behaved in the manner complained off.  In some cases, members noted the evidence obtained had actually indicated aggressive or otherwise unreasonable behaviour by the complainant towards the councillor concerned.

Ø   The main recurring factor in relation to the escalation of complaints to the Assessment Criteria Stage has been the contents of the complaint which had indicated there may be a serious issue to consider with the opportunity therefore provided for the councillor involved to comment  being necessary to establish if that was the case.

·             The value and role of the Independent Persons in providing external scrutiny in relation to any complaints that reached the Assessment Criteria Stage.

·             Whilst no substantive changes had been recommended as a result of the review of the Member Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, three clarification amendments had been proposed (as detailed within section 3.16 and Appendix B of the report) which related to:

Ø   The inclusion of an explicit option for informal action (following consultation with the three Independent Persons) after an investigation, especially where (upon investigation) the facts lend themselves to an informal resolution, which members noted would be in line with the LGA guidance on complaints procedures.

Ø   To make clearer in the procedure the requirement for completion of the complaints form and the limited exceptional circumstances, where a complainant was unable to complete the form, for the complaint to be submitted in writing other than on the form or may be supported in completing the form.

Ø   To change the reference from Standards Committee to “Audit and Standards Committee”.

It was noted that the proposed changes would not require formal approval by the Audit & Standards Committee.

·             The outline of the consultation currently being undertaken by the Government  on potential changes to the standards regime and framework for local authorities in England.  Members were advised that the detailed consultation questions had been included in Appendix 3 of the report with views being sought on proposals including the potential introduction of a mandatory minimum code of conduct for local authorities in England; the requirement to convene formal standards committees to make decisions on breaches of the code and publish the outcome of all formal investigations; the introduction of powers to suspend councillors found in serious breach of the code; the introduction of a new category of disqualification for gross misconduct and for those subject to a sanction of suspension more than once in a 5 year period and the introduction of a national body to deal with appeals.  In addition, members were advised the consultation was also seeking views on how best to empower victims affected by councillor misconduct to come forward and what additional support may be appropriate.  The Committee were advised that the consultation was open for online response until 26 February 25 with councillors, officers, and members of the public able to respond individually and also the opportunity to respond collectively as a Committee.

Having considered the report the Committee was then invited to raise any comments/questions, which are summarised below:

·             Commenting on the suggested response to the Government consultation, members advised they would be keen to ensure a collective response was submitted on behalf of the Committee with the suggestion made that the consultation questions be sent to members following the meeting and responses collated via the Corporate Director Law & Governance for final review and approval (prior to submission) at the additional meeting of the Committee which it was proposed to schedule on 24 February 25.

·             Regarding the support available for members of the public in seeking to access and complete the existing complaints form, confirmation was provided that support was available for anyone struggling or unable to access the form with officers advising (in response to members concerns) that they would also review the contact details currently available on the Council’s website for this purpose.

·             In welcoming the details provided in relation to the trend analysis for complaints and their outcomes, further assurance was sought on the training provided for members in relation to the requirements under the Member Code of Conduct and how any trends identified would be reflected in the training provided moving forward.  In response, Debra Norman (as Corporate Director of Law and Governance) felt that the current training available for members on the Code remained effective as evidenced by the low level of complaints currently being received.  The training and guidance being provided to members was, however, subject to ongoing review based on trends identified with specific issues identified as a result able to be addressed through the provision of Monitoring Officer Advice Notes (MOANs) or the provision of drop in sessions for members designed to supplement the training provided.

·             Details were also sought on any benchmarking available in terms of how Brent compared with other local authorities regarding complaints against councillors under the code.  In response, Debra Norman advised that whilst these details were no longer collated on behalf of all local authorities the number of cases was felt to be relatively low in Brent compared to many other authorities.

As there were no further questions, the Chair thanked Biancia Robinson and Debra Norman for presenting the report and their responses, and the Committee RESOLVED:

(1)        To note the contents of the report and support the clarification amendments to the Members Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure outlined within the report with no recommendations identified regarding any more substantial changes for formal referral to the Audit and Standards Committee.

(2)        To note the government consultation process outlined within section 3.17 -3.19 of the report relating to the standards regime and approve a collective response being submitted on behalf of the Committee based on the consultation questions being sent to members following the meeting and responses being collated via the Corporate Director Law & Governance for final review and approval (prior to submission) at the additional meeting of the Committee to be confirmed on 24 February 25.