Agenda item

Report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor.

The Committee considered a report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor requiring Members to review how well the City Corporation’s current arrangements match the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life around the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct by public office holders in local government and to consider any changes to existing processes that may be desirable.

 

The Chairman stated that the Committee would consider a future report on this containing more detailed recommendations and specific proposals once the Government’s response to a number of the points raised had been received and any required legislative changes were implemented. There were, however, some recommendations that could be adopted by individual local authorities sooner. The Committee were asked to highlight areas of interest and particular recommendations that they would like to see brought back for further consideration.

 

The Comptroller signposted the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) as the most significant national event regarding Standards since the introduction of the Localism Act 2011. He went on to highlight that many local authorities appeared to be grappling with similar issues to the City Corporation around matters such as disclosable pecuniary interests and Section 31 of the Localism Act. He was of the view that the recommendations within the report were likely to occupy the Standards Committee’s work for the municipal year ahead. He urged Members to take the time to read the appended report in its entirety.

 

The Comptroller and City Solicitor acknowledged that whilst many of the CSPL’s recommendations, summarised at appendix 2, were for Government consideration, there were also some matters that the City Corporation might want to take a view on. There were also a number of potential ‘quick wins’ which could be implemented immediately if Members so wished, such as offering legal indemnity to Independent Persons – something that had recently been provided to the individuals sitting on the City Corporation’s Local Government Pensions Board.

 

Appendix 3 listed a number of best practice recommendations with those applicable to the City Corporation indicated alongside commentary highlighting where the organisation was ‘ahead of the curve’ on a number of these matters.

 

The Committee went on to discuss each of the recommendations detailed in Appendices 2 and 3 in turn:

 

Appendix 2

 

Rec 1 – It was noted that this recommendation was for the LGA to consider. The Comptroller and City Solicitor clarified that there had been no indication as to the LGA’s/Government’s response to any of the recommendations proposed to date. Once those responses were known, they would be reported back to Committee.

 

Rec 2 – Members indicated that they would like to consider the requirements around publishing a home address in an authority’s register of interests in more detail.

 

A Member commented that there were security reasons for some resident Members not wishing to do this. The Comptroller and City Solicitor confirmed that there were provisions in place for an address to be left off of the public register where this could lead to violence or intimidation. He agreed to bring a report back on this issue.

 

Rec 3 – A Member commented that many elected and Co-opted Members represented a number of different bodies and that this recommendation could create difficulties. He stressed that this would therefore need to be addressed carefully.

 

The Deputy Chairman underlined that if this recommendation was subsequently adopted by Government this would require the issuing of updated guidance to Members. She questioned whether the proposed presumption that a Member was acting in an official capacity should apply in all circumstances.

 

The Committee requested that this recommendation and the potential issues around it should feature in a further report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor to the next meeting of the Standards Committee. A Co-opted Member asked that this also have regard to the letter sent regarding social media use at the conclusion of a Complaints Hearing heard by the Hearing Sub (Standards) Committee last year.

 

Rec 4 – The Committee were of the view that this recommendation was less controversial but again requested that the potentail issues feature in a further report.

 

Rec 5 – It was noted that the City Corporation had already implemented this.

 

Rec 6 – It was noted that the City Corporation already required any gift or hospitality with a value of £100 or more, or totalling £200 or more over a year from a single source, to be registered.  The Comptroller and City Solicitor highlighted that Members may, however, wish to consider whether they wanted to change the limits in line with the CSPL recommendation.

 

Rec 7 – It was noted that the CSPL’s suggested test was consistent with this Committee’s published guidance on making sense of the current provision.

 

Rec 8 – It was noted that this matter had been raised by the Committee previously with a view to introducing a defined term of office for the City Corporation’s Independent Persons. A Member voiced the view that he, personally, felt that the recommendation of a fixed term of two year, renewable once, was too short.

 

The Committee requested a future report outlining the pros and cons of introducing fixed terms of different lengths. Members also requested that the report outline how engaged the Independent Persons were, how they were kept informed and what their views were since the Standards Regime Review had recommended that they no longer regularly attend Standards Committee meetings. The Chairman assured Members that the Independent Persons continued to receive all Committee agendas, partake in Complaints Hearings and were also invited to meet with the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and the Comptroller for six monthly meetings at Guildhall which they found extremely useful.

 

Rec 9 – The Comptroller and City Solicitor underlined that it was a statutory duty to consult an Independent Person but that there was currently no guidance as to how this should be done. He added that, at the City Corporation, Independent Persons were invited to personally attend Hearings. This meant that their views were already captured in the minutes. However, he agreed to bring a report back on this issue.

 

Rec 10 – It was noted that this would require a change to primary legislation.

 

Rec 11 – Members agreed with this recommendation and requested that a report be brought back to this Committee and the Finance Committee regarding the provision of legal indemnities to the Independent Persons for onward approval by the Court of Common Council.

 

A Member noted that the Independent Persons role had been expanded beyond the Standards Regime and also encompassed involvement in disciplinary procedures against the organisation’s statutory officers. He added that the Establishment Committee would also therefore have an interest in this matter as well as on the term of office and method of appointment for this position going forward.

 

Rec 12 – It was noted that this would require a change to primary legislation.

 

Rec 13 – It was noted that this would require a change to primary legislation.

 

Rec 14 – It was noted that this would require a change to primary legislation.

 

Rec 15 – The Committee noted that most of the information recommended for publication was already provided in the annual report. They agreed, in priciple, that information about the general nature of the complaints received should be provided in future annual reports.

 

Members requested a future report looking at this recommendation in more detail before any changes were made to the format of the Committee’s annual report.

 

Rec 16 – It was recognised that introducing a power of suspension would require a change to primary legislation. However, it was requested that this issue and any subsequent developments be revisited in a future report. It was noted that, at present, the removal of allowances would not be an option for City Corporation Members. Removal from certain Committees and removal of hospitality could, however, already be recommended in appropriate circumstances if a Member was found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

Rec 17 – The Committee noted that this recommendation was for the Government to implement.

 

Rec 18 – Members were in agreement with this recommendation but noted that it would require a change to primary legislation.

 

Rec 19 – It was noted that this was not applicable to the City Corporation.

 

Rec 20 – It was noted that this was not applicable to the City Corporation.

 

Rec 21 – It was noted that this was not applicable to the City Corporation.

 

Rec 22 – The Committee indicated that they would like further information around this recommendation.

 

Rec 23 – The Committee were in favour of adding a named contact for the external auditor and asked that a recommendation be made to the Audit and Risk Management Committee and Establishment Committee along these lines.

 

Rec 24 – The Comptroller and City Solicitor explained that this matter related to the so-called ‘Whistleblowing’ legislation and that any amendment would require Government support. Members requested that Officers report back on this matter in due course but felt that the recommendation was a good one.

 

The Comptroller and City Solicitor added that any change to the statutory position would require a future revision to the organisation’s Employee Code of Conduct which, at present, stipulated that staff were not able to lobby Members on employment matters and there could potentially be some crossover here. A Member agreed that this would be sensible and suggested that the Employee Code of Conduct might be updated in those circumstances to suggest that staff should not lobby Members on employment matters unless under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. Another suggestion was that the Government might want to restrict the number of Members who could be lobbied on employment matters (for example, in the case of the City Corporation, Establishment Committee members only).

 

Members suggested that any future report around this recommendation be submitted to both this Committee, the Establishment Committee and the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

 

Rec 25 – It was noted that, should compulsory Member training effectively be introduced nationally through political parties, the City Corporation would be out of kilter. The Comptroller and City Solicitor added that there were, however, alternative mechanisms that might be introduced by the City Corporation in those circumstances such as not allowing a Member to join certain Committee’s without first undertaking appropriate training.

 

Rec 26 – It was noted that this matter was for the LGA.

 

In summarising, a Member stated that she would strongly advise that the City Corporation adopt the approach of ‘comply or explain’ in relation to all of the recommendations set out and that, where applicable, these should be adhered to unless there was good reason not to.

 

Appendix 3

 

BP1 – Members were of the view that a definition of bullying and harrassment and examples around the sorts of behaviour that would be caught should be adopted and that a report should be brought back on this matter.

 

BP2  - Members considered that this point was already sufficiently covered.

 

BP3 – It was noted that the Member Code of Conduct had recently been reviewed. Members were of the view that an annual review was too frequent but were content to receive a further report as to how the Code might be reviewed more regularly, on a suitable timescale – possibly every three years - going forward.

 

BP4 – Members re-emphasised the need to feed in to the corporate website review with regard to the accessibility and visibility of the Code of Conduct.

 

BP5 – It was noted that the City Corporation was already acting in line with best practice.

 

BP6 – It was noted that the City Corporation was already acting in line with best practice. However, Members requested that the current wording should be reviewed through a further report.

 

BP7 – It was noted that the City Corporation was already acting in line with best practice.

 

BP8 – It was noted that the City Corporation was already acting in line with best practice.

 

BP9 – The Committee requested that more detail be provided on this matter in the form of a future report.

 

BP10 - Members re-emphasised the need to feed in to the corporate website review with regard to the accessibility and visibility of the Complaints Procedure.

 

BP11 – It was noted that this recommendation was not applicable to the City Corporation. It was, however, suggested that some clarification around ‘self-referral’ of complaints might be useful in a future report.

 

BP12 – It was noted that this recommendation was not applicable to the City Corporation.

 

BP13 – It was noted that the Complaints Procedure already addressed conflicts f interest, including those affecting the Monitoring Officer. In such cases, colleagues or those external to the organisation would be asked to undertake the investigation. It was suggested that future consideration could be given to utilising other local authority Monitoring Officers, with each case looked at on its merits.

 

The Deputy Chairman stated that she was of the view that it paid to be robust in terms of conflicts of interest which could be difficult to manage in practice. She noted, however, that the City Corporation did already have mechanisms in place whereby such conflicts were managed which seemed to work sufficiently well. The Chairman agreed but asked that Officers look to spell out the pros and cons in using other Local Authority Monitoring Officers in a future report.

 

Members were also of the view that the terms of reference for any external investigation needed to be clear from the outset and adhered to.

 

RESOLVED –

 

(i)            That Members note the Review of Local Government Ethical Standards by the Committee on Standards in Public Life at Appendix 1;

(ii)           After reviewing the Recommendations at Appendix 2, Members support steps being taken around the implementation of Recommendations 9, 11 and 23. Members requested further detailed reports in relation to Recommendations 2-4, 6, 8, 15, 16, 22 and 24 going forward;

(iii)          After reviewing the Best Practice Recommendations at Appendix 3, Members requested further reports in relation to Recommendations 1, 3, 6, 9, 11 and 13 going forward.