Agenda item

To consider the report from the Solicitor to the Council, which asks the Committee to express a view as to whether the Council should take part in the consultation exercise.

The Solicitor to the Council presented the report, which advised the Committee that a public stakeholder consultation was being undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and that the Council had the opportunity to submit a response to the consultation. The report asked the Committee to consider whether the Council should take part in the consultation, and if it chose to participate, how the response should be drafted.

The Committee was informed that the report contained the consultation questions, and that comments in relation to possible responses had been provided by the Solicitor to the Council. It was also highlighted that the report contained the combined views of the Independent Persons, who were in attendance to discuss the consultation with the Committee.

The Committee asked a number of questions in relation to the consultation, and highlighted the requirement for a strong standards regime in public life as Councillors needed to remain accountable to the public. Discussion also took place in relation to whether the sanctions available for standards issues, and the arrangements in place for investigating such issues, were strong enough. It was particularly highlighted that disqualification from Office should not necessarily be related to the length of prison sentence alone, but should take into account the nature of the offence, and whether the individual was a fit and proper person to remain a Councillor.

At this point in the meeting, Councillor Cliff Lunn entered.

The Committee noted that drafting a response to the consultation would be difficult as it covered a range of complex issues, however it agreed that any response should clearly state that the sanctions available for standards issues were not strong enough.

In relation to questions about Councillors’ disclosure of pecuniary interests, the Solicitor to the Council explained that Government legislation had a very tight definition of what constituted a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI). However, the Committee stated that the definition may not match the public perception of what should constitute a DPI, as members of the public often expected Councillors to leave the room and not vote on an item if it constituted an ‘other interest’ as outlined in the Councillor’s Code of Conduct, despite Councillors being legally able to remain in the room and vote.

The Committee noted that the changes to standards regimes brought about by the Localism Act 2011 were welcome, but that there were a number of issues that needed to be considered, including the strength of sanctions available and the public perception of DPIs.

The Committee agreed that the Council should respond to the consultation, and agreed to delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to draft a response in consultation with the Chair, taking into account the matters discussed at the meeting. The Committee requested that the draft response be emailed to all Committee Members for final approval before it was submitted.

The Chair thanked the Independent Persons for attending the meeting.

At this point in the meeting, Philip Eastaugh, Hilary Putman and Wanda Stables left the room and did not return.

RESOLVED:

i.           To agree that the Council should take part in the consultation.

ii.          To delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to draft a response to the consultation that takes into account the comments made by the Committee.

iii.        To ask the Monitoring Officer to email the draft response to all Committee Members for final approval before it is submitted.