Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
No. | Item | |
---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Prior to the formal start of the meeting Councillor Herbert
questioned the status of the meeting. The Head of Legal Services clarified the
status of the meeting, and that it was hoped that consensus could be reached on
each item. It was noted that if votes were required, separate votes would be
required for the members of Civic Affairs and the members of Standards
Committee. Apologies were received from Councillor Smart and Mr
Dasgupta. |
||
Declarations of Interest Minutes: It was noted that the existing independent members were
eligible to apply for the role of the “Independent Member” for a transitional
period up until 1st July 2013, and therefore the existing independent
members may wish to leave the meeting for consideration of item 5 if they were
considering applying for the role. Dr Clark confirmed that he would be not be applying for the
role. Mr Williams withdrew from the meeting during Item 5 in case he decided to apply for the role. |
||
Notification and Declaration of Interests PDF 57 KB Minutes: The committee received a report from the Head of Legal
Services regarding changes to the notification and declaration of interests by
councillors. The changes took effect from 1 July 2012 and replaced the current
regime of “personal and prejudicial interests” with a category of “disclosable
pecuniary interests”. The report also asked for delegated powers to the Monitoring
Officer to determine applications for dispensations to speak and/or vote when
members had a disclosable pecuniary interest. Key changes included: §
Failure to notify or disclose a disclosable pecuniary
interest is a
criminal offence punishable by a fine and/or disqualification. §
The definition of a disclosable pecuniary interest includes interests held by councillors and
their “partner”. §
There is no longer a test of whether an interest is
“prejudicial”. If a member has a “disclosable pecuniary interest” in a matter,
they may
not participate unless they obtain a dispensation. The Head of Legal Services mentioned that the scope of a
declarable pecuniary interest was much narrower than that of a personal
interest. However, the new Code of Conduct recommended later in the agenda
sought to retain the current requirements to register and declare interests
that were not disclosable pecuniary interests. Members of the committee raised a number of queries
concerning the circumstances in which a declarable pecuniary interest might
arise. Members also expressed concern that the requirement to register
interests held by a partner would infringe partners’ rights to privacy. Members agreed that delegating consideration of
dispensations to the Monitoring Officer made sense but asked that the Chair and
Spokesperson(s) for Civic Affairs continue to be consulted after the
appointment of the “Independent Person”. They also recognised that consultation
would not be possible if an application for a dispensation was made at short
notice. In these circumstances, the Monitoring Officer should be authorised to
determine the application but should report the decision to the next meeting of
Civic Affairs.
|
||
Adoption of a Code of Conduct PDF 77 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The committee received a report from the Head of Legal
Services explaining that the standards provisions in the Localism Act meant
that the Council had to adopt a new Code of Conduct. The Head of Legal Services
said that the draft Code circulated with the agenda for the meeting was not the
correct version and he circulated the correct version. The Head of Legal Services explained that there were several
model codes in circulation and drew attention to the codes issued by the Local
Government Association and by the Department for Communities and Local
Government. Both model codes were attached to the report. The code recommended for adoption was based on the current
code, amended only to include the new requirements for notification and
declaration of “declarable pecuniary interests”. All Cambridgeshire local
authorities, with the exception of Huntingdonshire, were considering basing
their codes on the current code, although the final versions adopted by
authorities were likely to differ in the detail. Members discussed the merits of the more detailed approach
taken by the proposed code and the merits of the “lighter touch” approach taken
by the other two model codes. The Head of Legal Services stressed the need for the Council
to adopt a code of conduct on 19 July but said that it would be possible to
revisit its provisions if members wished to make improvements.
|
||
Appointment of an "Independent Person" PDF 50 KB Minutes: The committee received a report from the Head of Legal
Services setting out the need to appoint one or more “independent persons” in
connection with the revised standards regime introduced by the Localism Act
2011. A proposed description of the role, and of the skills and competences
needed, was annexed to the report. The report set out the statutory functions of the
Independent Person: §
The IP must be consulted and their views taken into
account before the Council makes a decision on any allegation it has decided to
investigate. §
The IP may be consulted by the Council in other
circumstances related to “standards” issues; e.g. at the point at which a
complaint is received, or more generally regarding ethical issues. §
The IP may be consulted by a member of the authority against
whom an allegation has been made. The report recommended that, in addition, a deputy
Independent Person should be appointed, to avoid conflicts of interest and to
provide resilience. The proposed allowances were in line with those being
recommended to other Cambridgeshire councils. In response to questions, the Head of Legal Services
clarified that the prohibition in the Localism Act that would have barred the
appointment of current external members on the Standards Committee as
Independent Persons had been lifted. He also indicated that, whilst Independent
Persons or other members of the public could be co-opted to a Standards
Committee, this would have to be on a non-voting basis. Members discussed arrangements for advertising the
appointments and agreed that they should be advertised in the press, as well as
on the Council’s website.
|
||
Considering Complaints and Governance Arrangements PDF 56 KB Minutes: The committee received a report from the Head of Legal
Services regarding responsibility for the Council’s statutory duty to promote
high standards of conduct, for overseeing complaints against councillors and
for other aspects of standards in local government. The report explained that the Localism Act revoked the
statutory requirement to have a separate standards committee and recommended
making the Civic Affairs Committee responsible for these functions. Amended
terms of reference for the Civic Affairs Committee were set out in Appendix 1
of the report. Appendix 2 of the report proposed a procedure for considering
complaints that a councillor had breached the Code of Conduct. This sought to
adopt a more flexible and less bureaucratic approach to consideration of
complaints to that previously required by statute, whilst ensuring external
oversight through the role of the Independent Person. The procedure also
proposed a right of review by a sub-committee if members of the public were
unhappy with decisions made at officer level. Members discussed approaches to dealing with complaints,
including the merits of mediation in appropriate circumstances. Members
suggested that the sub-committee that would consider complaints should be
referred to as the “Standards Sub-Committee”. They also asked for sub-committee
decisions to be published in the form of decision notices and that a summary of
complaints against councillors should be included in the Annual Complaints
Report. Following discussion, the Committee agreed to amend annex 2
of the report: as follows: i. References to Complaints Sub
Committees should be replaced with Standards Sub Committee ii. That Standards Sub Committees would be 2
Liberal Democrats + 2 Labour in composition and that all members of Civic
Affairs should be authorised to be members.
|