Agenda item

To consider the findings of the review undertaken by the Standards Regime Working Party in respect of the Corporation’s current Standards Framework.

STANDARDS REGIME REVIEW WORKING PARTY

(Emma Edhem)

27 November 2017

Independent Review of the City of London’s Standards Regime

This report provided the findings of the review undertaken by the Standards Regime Working Party in respect of the Corporation’s current Standards Framework, especially the Complaints Procedure (alleged breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct). Specifically, the report outlined the consideration given to a review undertaken by Mr Charles Bourne QC and his report, who was appointed by the Town Clerk to examine the Standards Framework, and provided both findings and recommendations on how to improve the current arrangements.

It was recommended that the Court of Common Council approve the responses proposed in respect of the recommendations as set out in the report, and the revised Code of Conduct, Complaints Procedure and Guidance to Members on the Code of Conduct as appended.

The Chairman spoke to introduce the item, reminding Members of the background to this issue and outlining the process through which the Working Party had examined the various items raised by Mr Bourne, thereby coming to the conclusions now being presented to the Court.

Oliver Lodge expressed his gratitude to the Chairman and the Working Party for the significant time and effort expended on this review; however, he expressed a number of reservations as to the proposals in their current format, noting that there remained a small number of areas where he felt that further thought and reflection was required. In particular he was concerned that recommendation 10, which proposed that the Monitoring Officer make initial assessments in response to complaints against Members, transferred responsibility and ownership of the process away from democratically elected and accountable Members and unfairly placed officers in a difficult position.

Mr Lodge also outlined concerns in relation to the proposed composition of the Standards Appeals Committee. Whilst agreeing that this body should be separate from the Standards Committee, he was unconvinced that it should be comprised of those Members already holding significant offices, noting that this Committee may well be needed to hold those office-holders to account and act as a check on certain actions.

Finally, Mr Lodge noted that a consequence of approving the proposals in their current format would be that ownership of the appended Code of Conduct guidance documents would transfer solely to the Court. He urged that this be left with the Standards Committee, which could make minor amendments such as changing officer names without recourse to the Court of Common Council, rather than adding an additional layer of bureaucracy.

Amendment – That the report be referred back to the Standards Regime Working Party for further consideration.

A number of Members spoke in support of Mr Lodge’s amendment, with it argued that each stage of the complaints process should be Member-led and Member-owned as a matter of principle, as it was Members who were accountable to the electorate and officers who were accountable to Members; it was therefore unfair to put the onus of making judgements on officers. It was also urged that any revised proposals should be brought back to the full Court on an informal basis, to resolve any final outstanding issues before submitting it for formal consideration.

Further concerns were also raised in respect of recommendation 25 and the proposal that the burden of proof for complaints should rest with the complainant. Whilst it was agreed that the burden should not rest solely with Members to prove their innocence, it was also felt to be unfair to place full responsibility on the complainant and effectively require them to act as the prosecutor. In addition, it was argued that the proposals concerning rights of appeal merited further consideration, as the current suggestion seemed to suggest that appeals would be permitted without the submission of grounds for the said appeal, which was unusual and could result in appeals being lodged automatically as a matter of course.

Observing that all Members would be bound by this new standards regime, a Member of the Working Party agreed that it would be important for the whole Court to be content with the final proposals. Accordingly, it would be sensible to step back and resolve these outstanding minor concerns before presenting a revised report for formal consideration and adoption. It was also suggested the item should be placed higher on the agenda when re-submitted, to ensure as large a proportion as possible of Members were able to contribute.

As the mover of the amendment, Oliver Lodge spoke to sum up the arguments presented in favour of his proposal and urged that the report be referred back to the Working Party for further reflection and deliberation.

The Chairman of the Standards Regime spoke to close the debate, adding that she would be content to re-explore the proposals should that be the will of the Court. She also set out what she had identified as the points of contention that Members wished the Working Party to reconsider:

·      that elements of Appendices 2 and 3, in relation to guidance, should continue to be owned by the Standards Committee;

·      that the composition of the proposed Standards Appeal Committee should be reconsidered;

·      that the proposals relating to the burden of proof should be reconsidered;

·      that further thought should be given to requiring grounds for appeal; and

·      that proposals concerning the role of the Monitoring Officer in the initial assessment of complaints should be re-examined.

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

Resolved – That the report be referred back to the Standards Regime Working Party for further consideration.