Agenda item

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning those aspects of the Governance Review relating to the Standards Regime. The report presented the recommendations of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (RASC), following an informal engagement process intended to gather the views of all Members.

The Chair thanked Sheriff Christopher Hayward for his efforts in managing the consultation process to-date and drew Members’ attention to RASC’s proposals as set out in the report. The Committee proceeded to debate the various recommendations in turn:

(i)        Do Members agree with the recommendation to establish an Independent Panel, composed only of independent persons?

The Committee agreed with this proposal.

(ii)       Should such a Panelreceive allegations of misconduct, determine whether to investigate, present findings to the Court, and hear any appeal?

          Noting the recommendations and views of RASC in respect of a three-stage process operated by the Independent Panel, Members supported the proposal but noted an important clarification in respect of the first stage and the role of the Chief Commoner. It was emphasised that the Chief Commoner’s informal dispute resolution role was distinct from this three-stage process and that the first stage of the new process being recommended here would be overseen by the Independent Panel. The three stages would comprise:

·      A first stage of a more informal / conciliatory nature, seeking to resolve swiftly those issues which might be addressed through dispute resolution or a conversation and apology (with external dispute resolution advice to be made available to the Panel and a suitable protocol produced for such stage to be produced).

·      The second stage to then be the formal Hearing process, utilising the Independent Panel, as outlined by Lisvane (i.e. determination of investigation and breach and reporting to the Court of Common Council for endorsement).

·      The third stage to be the Appeal stage, the Panel for which should also include a minority of Members of the Court of Common Council, to help provide any relevant internal context.

(iii)      What should its composition be?

The Committee agreed that the Panel should be entirely independent (i.e. non-City Corporation Members) and that the sub-panels at the hearing and appeal stages should be comprised of entirely different people, although drawn from the same overall pool. Consequently, the Independent Panel itself would need to be sufficiently large to ensure that this was always possible. A panel of nine was agreed, with Members also agreeing that staggered terms would be important to provide for both continuity and turnover.

Whilst there was a preference for the Panel to have a range of individuals with background in arbitration, judicial, or tribunal processes, Members also felt strongly that the Panel should be comprised of a diverse group of individuals and so some flexibility or pragmatism may be required to ensure this.

The principle that an entirely new Panel should be appointed was agreed (rather than seeking to roll-over or extend the appointments of existing Standards Committee co-optees, for instance). However, following discussion as to the position of some individuals who had been appointed very recently, it was noted that an open and fair recruitment process would provide an opportunity for those currently serving to apply, should they so wish.

(iv)      How should it be appointed to?

Members noted that, ultimately, it would be for the Court to approve the appointment of individuals and agreed that, prior to longer-term consideration as to appointments processes through the Lisvane Review, appointments should be made through a fair and transparent advertising process with the Policy Chair, the Chief Commoner, and the Chair of the General Purposes Committee of Aldermen (or their representatives) acting as the interview panel and recommending appointments to the Court.

(v)       Should the positions on the Panel be remunerated?

The Committee supported RASC’s view that positions on the Panel should be remunerated to ensure good candidates were available, using the standard rate for public appointments (c. £300 per day).

(vi)      Who should be responsible for supporting the Panel, or for producing the Panel’s rules and procedures (including possible sanctions)?

It was agreed that this should continue to be the Monitoring Officer (i.e. the Comptroller & City Solicitor), together with an element of clerking or administrative support.

(vii)    How should the Court consider its recommendations (i.e. should a Standing Order, preventing debate on any of the Panel’s recommendations, be progressed?)

The Committee supported RASC’s view that it was inappropriate and undesirable for such recommendations to be debated in full at the Court of Common Council. However, it was felt that trying to establish and uphold a Standing Order prohibiting debate at Court would be impractical in reality, notwithstanding views as to desirability. Members also noted the legal requirement for decisions to be made by the Court, or one of its committees, sub-committees, or officers (or an appointed other local authority or joint committee). Ultimately, it was felt that the proposed new three-stage process, with Member involvement at the appeal stage, would ensure that allegations were dealt with properly and efficiently from the outset, thereby granting confidence in the process and mitigating against the risk of debate at Court.

(viii)   Do Members agree with the proposal to abolish the Standards Committee and Standards Appeal Committee?

Members supported the proposal for the Standards Committee and the Standards Appeals Committee to be disbanded but noted that a new interim “owner” for several areas of the Standards Committee’s remit would need to be determined.

(ix)      If yes, what is the preferred timescale for abolition?

It was agreed that efforts should be taken to have the new arrangements in place for the coming (2021/22) municipal year.

(x)       If abolition is prior to the establishment of a new overall committee framework, what should happen in the interim to those areas of responsibility under the purview of Standards Committee which do not relate to complaints and so would not necessarily go to the new Panel

The Committee discussed the proposal that the Members Privileges Sub-Committee, chaired by the Chief Commoner, should take on these functions on an interim basis and expressed a number of reservations, particularly in relation to dispensations.

Ultimately, given that it would be on an interim basis, it was agreed that all elements with the exception of dispensations should be transferred to the purview of the Members’ Privileges Sub-Committee.

(xi)      In particular, where should responsibility for Dispensations and the Code of Conduct sit, and do any changes need to be sought to either procedure at this point in time?

It was agreed that responsibility for considering applications for dispensations should be transferred to the new Independent Panel; however, it was noted that the Panel could not legally make any final determination. Instead, it was agreed that the Panel’s findings should be put to the Town Clerk for ratification.

Further, it was observed that an urgent decision in respect of an application may be required on the occasion when it was not possible for the Independent Panel to consider any application and make a recommendation to the Town Clerk. In such case, it was agreed that the Comptroller and City Solicitor should also be authorised to make determinations as to urgent applications, should they arise.

(xii)    Are Members happy to support a change to the way in which the Register of Interests is set out?

Members supported a change with a view to greater transparency, as proposed.

(xiii)   Should training on standards and conduct matters be made mandatory?

Noting the range of views on this matter, it was felt that the majority view was that training should only be mandatory in some areas, in respect of those specific committees with a statutory or quasi-judicial function, and not across the board. With reference to training around standards and conduct in particular, it was felt that such training should be made available for all Members immediately after each election. In all cases, training should be made available and be purposeful and up-to-date, with refresher sessions available to allow for continuous learning or development.

(xiv)   If so, what sanction should be applied in the event of non-compliance?

In the event of non-compliance in respect of those areas where training should be mandatory, it was felt that any sanction should be automatic and relate to the specific committee, i.e. consistent with the current approach in respect of the Licensing Committee, whereby any Member unwilling to undertake the relevant training was not permitted to serve on the hearing sub-committees.

The Chair thanked Members for their helpful contributions and was pleased to be in a position to present consensus proposals to the Court.

RESOLVED: That Members:-

1.         Note the proposals in relation to Standards made by Lord Lisvane in Section 8 of his Review (Appendix 1).

2.         Note the feedback provided by Members through the informal engagement process (Appendix 4).

3.         Determine to present recommendations in respect of the various proposals, as set out in discussion above, to the Court of Common Council.