Meeting documents

1. Welcome

In his welcoming address, the Chairman of the Standards Board, Sir Anthony Holland, stated that he will be retiring as Chairman in 2008. The Board’s move to Manchester had been completed and they were gearing up for their new role.

2. Parmjit Dhanda MP

Parmjit Dhanda, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, opened the conference by stating that he was very pleased to see that the theme of the Assembly this year was “making local regulation work”. He stated that this sums up the challenge for the next year in a nutshell. He said that there is an unstoppable tide of devolution - devolving powers and responsibilities to local government, local partners and to local communities. This does mean that it is now also time for a more devolved locally responsive conduct regime. Local democracy can not be renewed without renewing confidence and trust in both the system and the people who serve our communities. The key is each council’s Standards Committee. While central government are providing the statutory framework it is the Standards Committees that have to make it work. The Committees are there to promote the very highest ethical standards in public life, however, these are also an essential safety net if things go wrong and if this happens there needs to be a robust system in place. He said that he believed that the current proposals will achieve these ambitions.

He then set out the history of how we got to where we are now. He referred to the production of the revised Code of Conduct for Members which he believed was simpler, clearer and more proportionate. He stated that based on experience so far it would be fine tuned each year so that it’s absolutely fit for purpose.

The Under Secretary summarised what he believed were the main principals of the new regime:

First, every local Standards Committee will promote, educate and support members in following the higher standards of conduct. Further, it will ensure that those standards are fully “owned” locally - everyone there signs up.

Secondly, the local Standards Committee will be responsible for any allegations of misconduct. Only very exceptional cases will go to the national body. The norm will definitely be the local route.

Thirdly, the Standards Board will be a much lighter touch national regulator. Its main job will be to make sure that there is a consistent approach across the country. It will also deal with those rare cases where the local committee can not handle a matter. They may be the most serious ones, or there might be some special reason why they have to be passed to the Standards Board, but it was not expected there would be very many.

He then went on to state that he knows that many people have concerns about resources. He said the government recognises that there is a need for support and training to put in place the new arrangements and what has been taken on is challenging. Committees and monitoring officers need to build capacity and capability.

Finally, it is the Standards Committee who will uphold the higher standards of ethics and probity because they know that nothing else will do.

3. David Prince

David Prince, Chief Executive of the Standards Board for England, gave an overview on the progress and achievements that have been made over the last twelve months. He also looked forward to the changing role of Standards Committees as they prepare to receive and filter complaints and also to the Standards Board’s role in overseeing the effectiveness of the local system.

Standards Committees currently hold hearings into breaches of the Code of Conduct and make determinations. This function is now embedded into the local framework and, generally speaking, Standards Committees manage this process effectively and impartially. It is important that Standards Committees provide independent ratification of whether or not there has been a failure to comply with the Code. The Standards Board believe that local hearings, like local investigations, are important to ensure the local ownership of standards by all members. They believe that it is right that members should have their cases determined by their piers sitting alongside independent members. They believe that this balance is important to ensure public confidence in the fairness and independence of the system. This is why the government is increasing the contribution made by independent members serving on Standards Committees and is requiring the Chair to be an independent member where this is not already the case.

There is still an unresolved issue about how the Code impacts on members when they are not acting as members. Standards Boards most recent understanding is that legislation which was then currently before Parliament will restrict its impact to behaviour which has resulted in criminal conviction, and even then, it is possible that not all criminal convictions will be covered. He stated that as soon as they know, they will let everyone else know.

The Standards Board have received notification that over 3,400 authorities have formally adopted the new Code so far. The provisions of the new Code actually applied to all authorities from the beginning of October, but they do need to formally adopt it and they do need to let the Standards Board know.

59 authorities have, so far, chosen to amend their Codes. The Standards Board recommends that, as a rule, authorities should not amend the model code because it has potential to create confusion for members of the public; however, all of the amendments that have been received so far have properly reflected local choice and emphasis.

In June the Standards Board talked to almost 1,100 members and monitoring officers in a dozen cities across the length and breadth of the country. The road shows told local government about the changes to the Code of Conduct and introduced the proposed changes to the system for dealing with allegations. Most importantly, it gave them the chance to listen to concerns, hopes and anxieties. They have striven to respond to those in tailoring the guidance.

36 authorities helped the Standards Board to launch the 3 pilot projects, designed to help them to help authorities to prepare for their new role in receiving and filtering complaints and to prepare the Standards Board for their new role to support authorities and to take the overview to guarantee consistent high standards and public confidence.

In September, the Standards Board produced and distributed “The Code Uncovered”, a DVD on the new Code of Conduct, to every monitoring officer. It was designed as a training aid for members and feedback that has been received so far has been very positive.

As far as the next twelve months are concerned, the Standards Board will do everything that it can to ensure that Standards Committees and monitoring officers are confident in their roles and that the system is operated effectively at local level. They will produce guidance and information on how to mange cases locally, via delivery of strategic framework guidance and performance monitoring. They will also provide support to authorities who are failing to operate the local system effectively. They will identify, share and communicate information on trends in case handling performance and outcomes of cases.

4. Patricia Hughes

Patricia Hughes, Deputy Chair of the Standards Board, gave some details about the three pilot projects which the Board has undertaken with authorities this year. Following the pilots, they asked monitoring officers for recommendations on “making the local filter work” in their own authority. The results demonstrated that almost half of the monitoring officers would increase the frequency of Standards Committee meetings and 40% would consider increasing the size of their Standards Committee, with 33% identifying a need to have more independent members. 60% felt that there would be a need to increase resources in order to carry out the new responsibilities.

She then went on to look at some key issues on the filtering process which need to be considered at the moment. One of the key issues was the need to consider the ways in which authorities will let members of the public and others know how to make allegations and what the process entails. In addition, there is a need to consider what the point of reception for complaints will be and how to ensure that this is well known throughout the council. Also relevant is the fact that the decision itself will need to be made by the Standards Committee or a sub-committee of it.

As regards the decision, the Board regards the following as being four matters to consider:

First, is the complaint within the jurisdiction of the Code? For example, is the person complained against a member?
Second, does the complaint disclose a prima-facie breach of the Code?

Third, is there insufficient evidence on which to reach a decision?

Fourth, if there is a prima-facie breach, does the allegation merit investigation or not?

Finally, on the local filter, authorities will also need to have a review mechanism for complainants to use if they wish to appeal against the decision not to investigate. As far as the Board are concerned, as they evolve into a strategic regulator, they will be better able to provide the independent advice and guidance, monitoring and oversight that are essential if the public and local government are to feel confident about the quality and effectiveness of the framework.

5. Mini-Plenary

(i) Local Filter: in detail

This workshop looked at the lessons that were learned from the local filter pilot, which was conducted in June/July 2007. It was arguably the best session and its worth looking at the points in detail.

Complaints will be made in the first instance to local Standards Committees. The Standards Committee will then decide: The complainant can request a review if the Standards Committee decide to take no action. This request must be made within 30 days of the notification of the decision. The Standards Committee must make a decision on the request within three months. Where the allegation is referred by the Standards Committee to the Standards Board, the Standards Board must:
There are a number of areas where new regulations will be required, for example, the procedures for Standards Committee to follow on receipt of a complaint, the time limits for undertaking local filtering and the obligations on Standards Committees and monitoring officers in handling referral decisions including when it is appropriate not to notify a member of a complaint. Further, there will need to be a process for review of referral decisions, provisions for access by the public to meetings, publicity, agendas, reports, etc., and how matters referred to monitoring officers are to be dealt with.

There are a number of issues which need to be considered, for example, the Standards Committee will have three separate and distinct roles:

There will need to be safeguards to avoid conflict so a decision will need to be made as to whether there should be a separate sub-committee for each stage of the process, what the optimum size of the sub-committee should be, etc..

It was suggested that the safest option was to have three separate sub-committees, but it would be possible for the same members to exercise functions (a) and (c) if it was decided to have only two.

There is also the possibility for joint Standard Committees and careful consideration must be given to this.

The Process

There will be a standardised complaint form. If the Standards Board don’t issue one, then ACSeS will. It must be decided who should receive this, for example, should it be the monitoring officer and also should all complaints be referred to the Standards Committee? For example, it may be that another process like referral to the Ombudsman would be more appropriate.

Further matters that need to be considered are:

The criteria for local filtering is an issue as the Standards Board currently operate according to national standards. It is likely that criteria for filtering will be determined locally and this could lead to different practices. In the pilot they used the four questions set out on page 4.

A decision will need to be made as to how the meetings should be recorded, e.g. should names be anonomysed?

Dealing with Requests for Review

There needs to be some criteria, for example, that the original decision is considered to be a flawed judgement because it is unreasonable in law or because the correct procedures were not followed or the complainant has provided compelling new information in their review request.

Being Ready for Local Filtering

There is a need to address training needs of Standards Committees and monitoring officers and a need for increased resources, together with publicity to ensure the public are aware of where to lodge a complaint after 1st April 2008.

A local filter pilot complaint handling chart was produced and is attached at Appendix 1.

6 Workshops

(i) Investigations: Tackling Complex Cases

This was presented by Jennifer Rogers, Ethical Standards Officer of the Standards Board, and Jonathan Eatough, Head of Democratic and Legal Services Kettering Borough Council.

What makes a case complex was discussed and the following guidance given:

· Multiple allegations.
· Number of complainants.
· Nature of allegations and resulting sensitivities.
· Status of subject member.
· Concurrent investigations.
· Number of disputed facts.
· Difficulties in obtaining evidence.
· Member sickness.
· Difficult areas of Code interpretation.

It was suggested that the way to tackle these complexities was to keep the investigation focused, to identify difficult and complex areas of the Code and to deal with confidentiality issues. It may be in some cases specialist advice is required. It is essential that the Standards Committee are trained on assimilating evidence and decision making.

Advice was also given on how to present complex information to a Standards Committee. It was stated that the information should be clear and concise within the report. It should identify disputed facts and come to a conclusion on the disputed facts giving reasons and also there should be cross reference to the evidence bundle in the report.

(ii) Cracking the Revised Code

This was presented by Mark Jones, Principal Legal Advisor for the Standards Board, and Nick Verginis, Policy Advisor, the Standards Board for England.

The workshop began by looking at what has changed with the code.

There are five key obligations:

A) Complying with the Equality Laws

There are a number of types of discrimination and these include, equal pay, sex discrimination, race discrimination, disability discrimination, sexual orientation, religion or belief and age. The last three relate to employment.

B) No bullying

This includes offensive, intimidating, malicious, insulting or humiliating behaviour. It can be one-off or part of a pattern. It can be based on abuse or misuse of power or authority and attempts to undermine an individual or a group. However, legitimate challenges of policy or performance are okay.

C) Confidential Information

This should only be disclosed if you have the consent of the person, or are required to do so by law (no change), or the disclosure is made to a third party to obtain professional advice, or the disclosure is in the public interest, i.e. is reasonable, in the public interest, made in good faith and does not breach any reasonable requirements of the authority.

D Disrepute and Private Capacity

Currently the Code only applies to members acting in their official capacity, however, after the then Bill, the Code also covers criminal conduct that has lead to a conviction, but it does not include cautions or other unlawful conduct short of a conviction.

E Changes to the Interest Section

There are changes in respect of declaring interest, so that it is less restrictive and enables community representation.

(iii) Engaging Leaders

This was presented by George Nairn-Briggs, Chair of the Standards Committee City of Wakefield MDC, John Pitt, Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer City of Wakefield MDC, and Councillor Ken Thornber CBE, Leader Hampshire County Council.

Role of the Leader in the Ethical Framework

The term leader was used to include the Leader of the Council, but also the Chief Executive.

There are a number of different roles for Leaders within the ethical framework. These include responsibility to drive the ethical standards forward, promote high standards of conduct, support the monitoring officer, support the Standards Committee and to promote acceptance of the need for high standards of conduct.

Decisions need to be made as to who should engage Leaders and what sort of support network they may need. Also, how the leadership should be engaged and any resources that would be required.

The Standards Board for England states that it is good practice for the Chair of the Standards Committee to engage with the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive. The support network should include the monitoring officer, the Standards Committee support staff and the Council’s Constitution.

Some guidance was given as to how Leaders should be engaged. This included making sure the Leadership are informed about the local filter arrangements, discussing politically sensitive cases, ensuring the Council as a whole is committed to the Standards’ agenda and setting a high level and pro-active framework and applying it within the Council. The issue of resources also needs to be considered, in particular in relation to budget, staff, training and communication strategy.

Some examples were given of the consequences of not engaging Leaders, for example, a case study regarding Doncaster where there were difficulties over institutionalised corruption, breakdown of normal control and processes, complete absence of standards and ethics framework, endemic bullying and intimidation and lack of any kind of accountability.

(iv) Understanding Interests

This was presented by Tony Kilner, Policy and Development Officer ACSeS and Freda Sharkey, Principal Legal Advisor from the Standards Board.

This session examined personal interests, and the effects of having such an interest.

It then considered prejudicial interests and their effects highlighting the fact that if a member has a prejudicial interest at a meeting, they can attend the meeting but only to make representations, answer questions or give evidence, if the public can do so for the same purpose.
If a member has a prejudicial interest then they must not remain in the room when the business is being discussed. They must also not exercise an executive function in respect of that business or seek to improperly influence a decision about that business.

(v) Managing Communications

This was presented by Tim Bogan, Head of Communications for the Standards Board and Edward Welsh, Director of Media and Campaigns for the Local Government Association.

This gave brief information about the need to have a communications strategy, including linking up with the press office. The main message was the need to plan ahead and have a media strategy. This strategy will deal with comments at the complaints stage, referral decisions, during an investigation and when the final report is complete and after a hearing.

8. Plenary

What’s the Score?

This was presented by Jessica Crowe, Executive Director Centre for Public Scrutiny, Dawn Hands, Research Director BMG Research and Alison Kelly, Strategy Advisor, Governance and Accountability, the Audit Commission.

This looked at the latest Audit Commission self assessment survey which revealed that although Councils were generally managing the ethical agenda well, there are a number of areas that require stronger action.

The key findings were:

· Most Councils actively encourage high standards.
· Members generally demonstrate high standards of behaviour.
· Leaders and Chief Executives are proving themselves positive role models in many Councils.
· Roles, responsibilities, relationships and ethical frameworks are not always clearly understood.
· Standards Committees make a difference but they don’t always explain widely what they do. The issues that they are addressing and the progress they are making.
· Members and Officers often hold divergent views on ethical governance issues.
· Communication, training, guidance and information are critical areas and often need more focus.

9. Conclusion

This was a large, well organised conference, which offered a great deal of choice of sessions to cover the needs of the different types of delegates attending.

For any member interested, more detailed conference documentation is available from either Bill McKibbin or Allison Mallabar in Corporate Services.

Linda Walker, Head of Legal Services
John Maddison, Vice Chair of County Council Standards Committee.
Mariom Khan Willis, Member of Police Authority Standards Committee.
William Ault, Independent Member of the Fire Authority Standards Committee.

Contact: Linda Walker Head of Legal Services 0191 383 3509