Agenda item

Governance Review – Lord Lisvane’s Recommendations

A Member referred to the recently published Lisvane recommendations, particularly those pertaining to this Committee and questioned whether it might be appropriate for Members here to be seen to accept these and to agree with the Committee’s abolition and replacement with an independent body – something that he would personally like to see acted upon by no later than April 2021. He accepted that, ultimately, the recommendations would need to be considered by the Policy and Resources Committee and the Court of Common Council.

The Chair commented that she had wanted to place this matter on the agenda today for proper discussion but had been advised that the recommendations would now be considered by the Resource Allocation Sub Committee (RASC) and that it was not appropriate for individual committees to discuss the adoption or rejection of any recommendations in an ad hoc way. She would, however, expect this Committee to have an appropriate opportunity to discuss the matter at their next meeting in January 2021and to make their views heard. She added that she would be very happy, at this stage, to record the Committee’s willingness to work constructively with RASC and all other relevant bodies on the adoption of a new or amended standards regime.

A Member questioned whether it might be possible for the Committee to give some further thought to this matter after next week’s Court of Common Council meeting with a view to influencing outcomes around any new arrangements.

The Deputy Chair commented that he was fairly confident that RASC would look to prioritise addressing recommendations pertaining to Standards. He added that members of this Committee were best versed in its work and role and that he therefore thought it was incumbent upon them to assist this process in any way that were able to. He suggested that an informal working party might be the best way to achieve this. The Chair added that it might also be possible to submit written representations that, in so far as possible, encapsulated an agreed position of the Standards Committee on certain matters and to submit these to RASC for their consideration at the appropriate time.

A Member who also sat on RASC, reported that Sheriff Christopher Hayward (one of the Deputy Chairs of the Policy and Resources Committee) had been tasked with leading on various ‘themed’ conversations around the recommendations at RASC over the next four weeks and that all Members would be given an opportunity to feed into these. He added that RASC was not unaware of the level and depth of work that was required ahead of further consideration by the Policy and Resources Committee and the Court of Common Council. It was expected that this would conclude in the New Year as opposed to this year.

The Chair added that there were many functions to this Committee and that it was perhaps quite easy to assume that establishing entirely non-Member complaint panels was the only matter to resolve. Other Members spoke to agree with and underline this point further.

A Member spoke further to reiterate that he was of the view that this Committee, as a matter of policy, should be seen to be broadly accepting recommendations concerning its proposed abolition whilst recognising that there were, indeed, more complex issues to resolve. This was likely to be supported and welcomed by the wider membership. He called for a further paper in January setting out the ways in which a new, independent, body might be set up and how the various different role performed by this Committee might be undertaken.

The Chair commented that she was personally in favour of the recommendations regarding Standards set out by Lord Lisvane but did have some reservations around suggestions as to where various functions of this Committee might go going forward.

Another Member spoke in support of the idea that this Committee ought, a this stage, to come forward in support of the recommendations made on Standards. She added that she was particularly opposed to the continuation of a complaints system whereby Members were required to sit in judgement of other Members as she felt that this created a lot of ill feeling. She added that she continued to be surprised by the number of Member on Member complaints coming forward.

Another Member spoke in support of the Lisvane recommendations pertaining to Standards. She added that her only concern was that there was a motion going before the Court next week (to which she was a signatory) and that, if passed, that may expedite work on these recommendations.  

Having listened to the debate, the Chair suggested that she write to Sheriff Hayward recording the Standards Committee’s willingness to embrace change and to work constructively with RASC with regards to what that change may be. It was hoped that this would set in motion a means for members of this Committee to collectively liaise on the detailed recommendations and encourage dialogue between the two bodies. Members were supportive of this approach.

The Comptroller and City Solicitor added that if the Committee would like to see a future report as to how Lord Lisvane’s recommendations could be implemented, this would be possible although it was important to also bear in mind the agreed governance process for this. He added that his view was that there was nothing particularly challenging in the recommendations from a legal or governance point of view but that the time it would take to put together an independent panel and for them to then adopt their own procedures would need to be taken into consideration. He commented that the Committee may therefore wish, in due course, to suggest that independent panels continue to use the existing Complaints Procedure until such time as they were able to establish their own system. This would, ultimately, be a matter for Members to decide upon.

Another Member spoke to agree with Lord Lisvane’s general thrust and supported the idea that the Chair write to Sheriff Hayward underlining the Committee’s broad support for its abolition. He added that the note should, however, also clearly highlight and encapsulate all of the various functions of this Committee that would still need to be performed elsewhere going forward. 

Annual Report – proposed amendments at Court of Common Council

A Member raised a question on behalf of another Member not on the Standards Committee as to the accuracy of the Annual Report and whether corrections had been made to this following proposed amendments made at the Court of Common Council in July.

The Chair reminded the Committee that the Annual Report had, for the first time this year, included a table summarising the outcomes of the various complaints dealt with over the past 12 months. The first of the cases listed simply said that a Hearing had found the Member to be in breach of the Code of Conduct and that this decision was upheld at Appeal. What was suggested at Court , however, was that the table should specify those paragraphs of the Code that the Member had been found to be in breach of rather than, unfairly, giving the impression that there had been breaches across the board. The Chair stated that this proposed amendment was accepted at the time and apologised for the lack of clarity in the report originally submitted to the Court of Common Council. She went on to clarify that this had been amended as suggested and republished immediately after the meeting and apologised for not having made this clear to the Member who had raised this.