Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with a report outlining a draft response to the current Government consultation on potential changes to the current Standards regime for consideration.

Debra Norman (Corporate Director Law and Governance) introduced a report seeking views on the draft response which had been prepared on behalf of the Council, reflecting comments received from members, on the current Government consultation regarding potential changes to the current Standards regime.

Members were reminded that an outline of the consultation questions had been provided at the previous Committee meeting on 4 February 25 where it had been agreed that a draft response on behalf of the Council should be prepared for consideration by the Committee.

Members were advised that the proposed response, taking into account comments provided to the Corporate Director of Law & Governance by members of the committee, had been detailed within Appendix A of the report.  It was noted that where responses had included “unsure”, the draft response had included the option for which a particular preference had been expressed by one or more other responders and where there were a majority in favour of a response, that had been selected in the draft.  In certain instances the proposed response had remained uncertain, based on the responses received, with member’s views therefore being sought on the preferred option to be included within the final submission.

In taking the Committee through these outstanding questions, the following comments and views were expressed:

• Consultation Question 8 – regarding the provision of voting rights to Independent Persons and co-opted members.  Members advised they would be supportive of independent co-opted members having voting rights but not Independent Persons, given their role in providing independent scrutiny, challenge and advice when dealing with complaints that reached the Assessment Criteria Stage, and this was agreed as the basis of the response to be provided.

• Consultation Question 9 – regarding the Standards Committee being chaired by an Independent Person.  Members expressed support for this provision, recognising the value this already provided to the arrangements in Brent and this was agreed as the basis of the response to be provided.

• Consultation Question 20 – regarding the nomination of an alternative point of contact for constituents where it was deemed that suspension of a councillor was an appropriate response to a code of conduct breach.  Whilst supportive of the proposal, members highlighted concerns regarding the nomination process for any alternative point of contact which members felt should be a matter for the Council to agree.  As a result, it was agreed the response provided include an additional comment advising of members views that guidance should be provided on the process for nominating an alternative contact with the preference for this to be undertaken by the Council.

• Consultation Question 21 – regarding the maximum length of suspension should that power be reintroduced as a sanction.  Whilst supportive of no maximum length being specified members felt the reintroduction of this power would need to be accompanied by guidance establishing criteria that could be applied to determine the length of any suspension, which it was felt would also need to reflect the seriousness of any breach.  It was therefore agreed to include these views as an additional comment within the final response.

• Consultation Question 23 – regarding the power to withhold allowances from suspended councillors in cases where it was deemed appropriate.  In considering this issue, members highlighted a number of challenges including the length of time any withdrawal of allowance would apply and whether this should involve basic as well as any Special Responsibility Allowance.  As a principle it was agreed that councils should have the option to withhold allowances from suspended councillors, reflecting the same position for MPs, which should apply for the length of suspension and be applied in cases where this was deemed appropriate reflecting the nature of the breach which had lead to the suspension.

• Consultation Question 36 – regarding providing the complainant with a right of appeal when an allegation of misconduct was not upheld.  Members whilst not supportive of an automatic right of appeal did feel there was a need more generally to ensure clarify was provided in relation to the appeals process to ensure fairness and consistent application of the process.

• Consultation Question 38 – seeking views on the need for the establishment of an external national appeals body.  Members advised they would be supportive of the establishment of a national appeals body but only to deal with cases involving the most serious breaches of the code and sanctions .  Recognising concerns relating to the resourcing of such a body and additional work required to support any appeal process, members were also keen to ensure a fair and consistent approach was applied in terms of handling appeals with clear guidance identified as required in terms of the cases that should be referred and also the ability for referral back in instances where it was not felt appropriate for the appeal to be determined at that level.  It was therefore agreed that the response be framed on that basis.

Having confirmed the responses outlined in relation to those questions on which uncertainty had been expressed, Debra Norman advised that she would finalise the collective response for submission on the basis set out in Appendix A of the report and as set out above.  Members were advised this would be submitted as a response on behalf of the Council, in consultation with the Audit & Standards Advisory Committee.

The Chair thanked Debra Norman for leading the discussion and collating and presenting the responses to the consultation for the Committee.  As there were no further issues raised it was RESOLVED to approve the draft consultation response (as set out in Appendix A of the report) subject to the comments and clarification provided on the questions above, for submission by the Corporate Director Law & Governance on behalf of the Local Authority.