Agenda and minutes

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and/or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda

No declarations of interest were made in any item of business on the agenda.   

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a total period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the Committee on any matter relevant to the work of the Committee.

Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers.

Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.  It is not required to give notice of the intention to make use of public speaking provision, however, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours notice is encouraged.

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos. 11 and 35 a total period of 10 minutes was allocated for members of the public to address the Committee on any matters relevant to the work of the Committee. 

Councillor David Brickhill addressed the Committee, speaking to a paper produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government concerning the current standards regime; a regime he considered to be ineffective.  He then made reference to local arrangements, commenting on the length of time and cost involved in bringing a complaint against him to fruition.  Item 6 on the agenda suggested a new procedure for dealing with complaints but, in his opinion, this was a like-for-like replacement which did not bring about the improvements sought.      

Having made his address, Councillor Brickhill withdrew from the meeting.                

To approve the Minutes of the meetings held on 28 March 2011 and 25 July 2011.  

The Committee was invited to approve the Minutes from the meetings held on 28 March 2011 and 25 July 2011. 

15.1    28 March 2011

Subject to the removal of Mrs Eatough’s name from the list of Councillors present and separate inclusion as Parish Representative –

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 March 2011 be approved as a correct record. 

15.2         25 July 2011

Minute 11 made reference to a letter which had been sent to a Subject Member, who had declined to attend a training session, as directed by the Assessment Sub-Committee following consideration of a complaint.  A Member stated that whilst this approach had been debated at the meeting, it had not been formally approved by the Committee and the letter should not have been sent.  He requested that a letter of apology be forwarded to the Subject Member concerned. 

RESOLVED: That i) Minute 11 b) be removed from the records; and ii) a letter of apology be sent to the Subject Member.         

On 5 August 2011, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Standards Committee wrote to the political Group Leaders on Cheshire East Council enclosing a discussion paper on the future of local Standards Committees which sought elected Members views. 

The response of the Conservative Group is attached; responses from the Labour Group, Independents and Liberal Democrat Groups will be reported orally at the meeting.       

At the Committee’s meeting in July 2011, Members had discussed the future of the standards regime in light of proposals set out in the Localism Bill.  To gauge opinion from Councillors on whether there was support for retaining a voluntary Code of Conduct and/or a voluntary Standards Committee, the Chairman and Vice Chairman had written to the Group Leaders on the Council to obtain their views. 

The response received from the Conservative Group was appended to the agenda and in summary i) supported the retention of a voluntary Code of Conduct; ii) suggested that informal inquiries into complaints received be conducted by the political groups, with more serious complaints referred to a Sub-Committee of Audit and Governance Committee for determination; and iii) that the main point of contact remain the Monitoring Officer. 

The Leader of the Labour Group was in attendance at the meeting and was invited to verbally report her Group’s views.  Councillor Flude began by stating that any opinions expressed on the standards regime could be influenced by a Member’s personal experiences and she asked that this be borne in mind when considering representations.  Notwithstanding her comments, the Labour Group supported the retention of a voluntary Code of Conduct and voluntary Standards Committee provided that the new framework was efficient, rigorous and was fair and equitable to the Complainant and Subject Member.  Retention of Independent Members on the Standards Committee was also endorsed.   

Councillor Parsons reported that the Independent Group had not discussed the matter and he was therefore unable to speak on behalf of the Group.  

As Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Councillor Fletcher reported that there was an acceptance that some form of structure needed to be in place to deal with complaints.  Whilst the current system had its flaws, it would be unfortunate if it was lost completely. 

It was the opinion of some Members that the current complaints system was open to abuse by individuals who could make false and vexatious claims with impunity.  A voluntary Code of Conduct could only be supported therefore, if there was some form of redress available against such Complainants.                            

The Chairman sought to establish whether there was a consensus amongst Councillors for adopting a voluntary Code of Conduct but an agreement could not be reached.  Whilst some Members strongly opposed the continuation of the standards regime in any form, those in support conceded that any new framework had to be simpler, quicker and more cost effective than at present.  Given that the next item on the agenda looked to address this point, the Chairman invited the Monitoring Officer to present her report.    

The report of the Monitoring Report/Borough Solicitor outlines alternative procedures for the determination of future complaints following the abolition of the current Standards regime, which the Committee is invited to debate.  

In setting the context for her presentation, the Monitoring Officer explained that the report sought to stimulate debate as to how the Council should move forward following the abolition of current standards practices.  Members also noted that during passage of the Localism Bill through Parliament, the House of Lords had proposed a number of amendments which could eventually result in the retention of a mandatory Code of Conduct.         

The Monitoring Officer first reminded Members of the procedures which were currently in place for determining complaints made under the Code of Conduct before moving on to describe a more streamline approach which presupposed the adoption of a voluntary Code of Conduct.  Whilst the revised framework was not ‘set in stone’, it was important that any future Code or investigation process was robust, had the support of elected Members and gave confidence to Complainants and members of the public. 

Members’ initial thoughts about the proposal reflected the range of views expressed earlier in the meeting.  To give free rein to the debate, the Chairman proposed that a meeting of the Standards Committee Issues and Ideas Working Group should be convened to enable Members to have a full and frank discussion about Standards issues.  Given the shifting position in respect of the Localism Bill, it was suggested that the meeting should be held in October, following the Third Reading of the Bill. 

RESOLVED: That a meeting of the Standards Committee Issues and Ideas Working Group be held on Tuesday 25^th October at 10.00am, venue to be confirmed.                

To receive an oral report from the Monitoring Officer/Borough Solicitor on the present position with respect to Members’ Register of Interests.    

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that each of the authority’s 82 Councillors had now completed a Register of Interest form.  In response to a question raised, it was noted that whilst forms had to be updated as and when a Member’s personal circumstances changed, it was considered best practice for Members to be given the opportunity to refresh their entries at the beginning of each Municipal Year.