Meeting documents
Standards Committee
Tuesday, 13th December, 2011
Present:
Mrs Valerie Bracken (Chair)
Councillors Baines, Bell and S Quinn, Mrs Barnes, Mr Berry and Town Councillors Carter and Milne.
Also in attendance:
Steven Pleasant, Chief Executive, Sandra Stewart (Borough Solicitor/Monitoring Officer) and Pam Williams (Borough Treasurer).
Apologies for Absence:
Councillor Kitchen and Reverend Thomas.
66. Declarations Of Interest
There were no declarations of interest submitted by members of the Standards Committee.
67. Chair’s Opening Remarks
In opening the meeting the Chair advised that Reverend Thomas had been hospitalised for the last three months but was hoping to spend some time at home over the Christmas period. Members of the Committee joined the Chair in sending their best wishes to Reverend Thomas and added that they were missing his contribution during this time of change.
68. Minutes
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Standards Committee held on 4 October 2011, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed by the Chair as a correct record.
69. Ethical Standards And The Localism Act 2011
At its previous meeting the Committee considered a report on the Localism Bill and its impact on standards arrangements. The Borough Solicitor presented a further report which advised that the Localism Bill had received the Royal Assent on 15 November becoming the Localism Act 2011. The full impact of the new Act was still being assessed but the main provisions were:
- Creation of a duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.
- Duty to adopt a code of conduct which must be consistent with the following principles:
(a) selflessness
(b) integrity
(c) objectivity
(d) accountability
(e) openness
(f) honesty
(g) leadership - Changes to the requirements for Standards Committees.
- Removal of the current assessment and review process.
- Changes to the process for dealing with breaches of any code of conduct.
- An obligation to register interests.
- The appointment of at least one independent person to be consulted on standards issues.
- Changes to the rules on granting dispensation in respect of interests.
She made reference to a briefing note appended to the report prepared by Weightmans local government specialists which covered the ethical standards provisions in Chapter 7 of the Act in a one page summary followed by a more detailed breakdown of the key implications for local authorities.
The Borough Solicitor advised that the Greater Manchester Monitoring Officers had agreed to set up a sub group to look at the implementation of the Act’s provisions and she would report back to the Committee on the progress of these discussions. Members of the Committee commented favourably on a proposal to introduce a local framework across the ten Authorities which would ensure that a solid ethical framework and support to elected members was maintained.
In response to a query from Councillor Carter, the Borough Solicitor advised that parish councils would be able to adopt the code of conduct of the principle authority.
The Chair made reference to the framework in place in Tameside which had worked well over a number of years contributing to the Council’s excellent record of high standards. There was still much to be made clear to authorities on how matters would be dealt with in practice in the future.
Resolved
That the content of the update report and briefing paper be noted.
70. Arrangements Relating To The Abolition Of Standards For England
The Borough Solicitor made reference to a communication dated 6 December 2011 from Tim Leslie, Standards for England Interim Chief Executive, advising on arrangements relating to the abolition of Standards for England. It was the Government’s intention that abolition would take effect on 31 March 2012 and prior to this the Standards for England’s role in handling cases and issuing guidance was anticipated to be 31 January 2012. Standards for England would be working closely with the Department of Communities and Local Government to ensure an orderly handover and closure of the organisation.
Resolved
That the content of the communication be noted.
71. Blogging And Social Media Guidance Update
The Borough Solicitor introduced a report which informed the Standards Committee about a recent ruling of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) which considered the circumstances under which a Member can be said to be acting in their official capacity. The judge had made comments about the meaning of the phrase “acting as a representative of your authority” in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Code.
The case concerned a decision by the standards hearing sub-committee of the London Borough of Richmond made in respect of the appellant, then a councillor. The sub-committee had determined that the councillor had breached paragraphs 3(1) (respect for others) and 5(2)(b) (bullying) of the Members’ Code of Conduct through his behaviour towards council officers and was suspended for 28 days. The Upper Tribunal was of the opinion that the body considering the complaint (i.e. the standards committee or, on appeal, the First-Tier Tribunal) should have considered the issues which were raised in relation to official capacity. In this case there was a failure to consider the facts which questioned whether the councillor was acting in his official capacity.
Where official capacity was raised as an issue in cases it would appear that the Upper Tribunal would expect the body hearing the case to address official capacity in future by making references to the conduct of the member that amounted to acting as a representative of the authority. Standards for England had suggested that this could have serious implications for the interpretation of a member’s activity on blogs, twitter and other internet sites. As such they had considered and revised their guide to blogging which was appended to the report for information.
The Standards Committee discussed the increasing use of online media which had become popular as a means of communicating to a wider audience. However, Councillors had to be mindful that the Members’ Code of Conduct may apply to them when blogging or using social networking sites and a failure to comply could have serious consequences.
Resolved
That the content of the report be noted.
72. Probity In Planning
The Borough Solicitor stated that in June 2011 the Standards Committee had considered a revised draft planning protocol and had asked for consultation to be undertaken on it. The protocol was largely declaratory of the current good practice, setting out the role of the Speakers’ Panel (Planning) and guidance on a number of topics, providing assurances to external regulators, developers and the public that the Council acts with the highest standards.
She advised that the revised draft protocol had been considered by the Council’s Speakers’ Panel (Planning) on 23 November 2011 and most of the code had been favourably received by Members of the Panel. The Borough Solicitor outlined the main points of discussion at that meeting and in particular that Chair of the Panel and some Members were opposed to the inclusion of paragraph 4.3(b) in the draft protocol which stated that if a member of the Panel had been approached by an applicant or an objector they must:
“Immediately notify the Council’s Head of Housing and Planning of the fact that such an approach has been made, ensuring that a record is made.”
It was also felt that this somewhat overlapped with 4.4 which stated:
“Where a Member of the Speakers’ Panel receives written representations or comments directly in relation to a planning application or development plan proposal (this includes emails), Members must immediately pass the correspondence to the Council’s Head of Housing and Planning, in order that those representations may be taken into account in any report to the Panel or, where received too late, can be referred to by officers at the Panel meeting. No response should normally be made by the Councillor concerned.”
Some Panel Members felt that this requirement was not appropriate and the example was given of not wishing to name a constituent who was opposed to a planning application but was afraid of being identified as an objector. Paragraph 4.3(b) did not require the Councillor to give the name of the person making the approach although this would normally be expected and it was therefore considered that there was enough flexibility in the protocol to deal with this situation sensitively.
If paragraph 4.3(b) was removed there would be no requirement for Panel Members to let the Council know if they had had extensive meetings with a developer or an objector.
The view was expressed that if a Panel Member received an email about a planning application he or she would not necessarily need to inform the Planning Department. However, it would of significant concern if issues were raised or views were expressed in a direct communication to a Panel Member, particularly if those representations were not raised in an objection sent directly to the Planning Department. It was considered very important that any representations received directly by Councillors were passed to the Planning Department so they could be addressed. A decision failing to take account of relevant representations was likely to be unlawful. Whilst those familiar with the planning system would know that representations should be submitted to the Planning Department, not everyone was familiar with the system. It would be very easy for someone who had sent a representation to a Panel Member to succeed in an application for judicial review if that representation was not passed on to the Panel and addressed by the Planning Officer.
In conclusion it was recommended that both paragraphs 4.3(b) and 4.4 remained in the code to protect Members and reflect the position of the Courts. It was noted that Members would have discharged their duty if they advised the Clerk or the Solicitor to the Speakers’ Panel.
It was also felt that the obligation to inform the Head of Housing and Planning immediately was too onerous and it was recommended that the word “immediately” should be replaced with “promptly” in paragraphs 4.3(b) and 4.4. In addition, Mr Berry suggested that in paragraph 4.4 the word “emails” should be replaced with “electronic communication”.
The Standards Committee agreed that the adoption of the revised Code of Conduct would ensure Councillors and Officers involved in the planning process were aware of what was expected of them and when to seek advise. It would also meet the general public’s expectation that a planning application would be processed and determined in a transparent, open, reasonable and fair manner.
Resolved
That the revised Code of Conduct be recommended to Council for adoption as part of the local ethical framework.
73. The Bribery Act – Awareness Guidance
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor which provided updated guidance to be issued to elected members, employees and schools following recommendations made at the last meeting of the Standards Committee.
The Bribery Act 2010 received Royal Assent on 9 April 2010 and came into force on 1 July 2011. Bribery offences had existed for many years under the UK’s prevention of corruption legislations and these were broadly the acts of being bribed and bribing. However, the Bribery Act introduced further and wider offences of failing to prevent bribery. The offence of failing to prevent bribery could be committed where the act of bribery or being bribed had been carried out and that act was not prevented by the organisation.
The guidance was being issued to raise awareness of the Act and ensure that there was full commitment to preventing bribery in the organisation and covered the following issues:
- What is Bribery?
- Facilitation Payments / Benefits in Kind;
- Why is it important to prevent Bribery;
- Consequences of the Offences;
- Tameside’s Values;
- Tameside’s Procedures to Prevent Bribery
The Borough Solicitor explained that all instances of malpractice would be investigated and she made reference to a recent incident in the Markets Section which had resulted in action being taken against those concerned.
Members of the Standards Committee welcomed the guidance particularly relating to the giving and receiving of gifts and how to distinguish between routine and disproportionate hospitality. This demonstrated a commitment to preventing bribery in the organisation and ensuring that elected members / employees were both confident and comfortable about maintaining professional relationships in an appropriate way.
Resolved
That the Bribery Act awareness guidance be approved and communicated to members, staff, schools and employees through the usual mechanisms including an article in the employee magazine, the Wire and that Council authorise the Borough Solicitor to update constitution and all ancillary guidance documents to reflect the new legislation and statutory guidance.
74. Register Of Interests And Gifts And Hospitality
The Register of Interests and Gifts and Hospitality were made available for inspection.
75. Urgent Items
The Chair advised that there were no urgent items for consideration at this meeting.
76. Date Of The Next Meeting
It was noted that the next meeting of the Standards Committee would take place on 13 March 2011 commencing at 4.00 pm with the briefing for Standards Committee Members only with the Chair at 3.45 pm.