Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sharon Hardwick and Rebecca Filer, and from the Independent Person Maggie Redfern.

There were no declarations of interest.

Broadcast of the meeting

The Chair to announce the following: ‘In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record this meeting, I would like to remind everyone that this meeting is being broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for twelve months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available upon request.

If you have asked to address the meeting, you are deemed to be consenting to having your contributions recorded and broadcast, including video when switched on, and to the use of those sound recordings and images for webcasting and/or training purposes.’

Any other announcements

Broadcasting of the meeting

The Chair announced that the meeting was being broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and could be viewed on the website for twelve months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts were archived and could be made available upon request. Those who had asked to address the meeting were deemed to be consenting to having their contributions recorded and broadcast and to the use of those sound recordings and images for webcasting and/or training purposes.

Requests to speak at the Committee on a matter within its terms of reference must be made in writing to the clerk named on the front of this agenda by 5pm two working days before the meeting.

There were no deputations.

There were no items of urgent business.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2023.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th June 2023 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Report of the Borough Solicitor.

Bristol City Council’s Value and Ethics Committee has recently agreed to establish a working group to review the Council’s complaints process following a Freedom of Information request and letter from local residents. This report discusses the procedure for dealing with complaints against councillors in Camden and provides an opportunity for Standards Committee to comment.

Consideration was given to the report of the Borough Solicitor.

In response to a question, Andrew Maughan (Borough Solicitor) clarified that the Council funded the complaints process and the complainant would not be asked to contribute. With regard to the investigations that had resulted in the resignation of councillors, there had been no finding of a breach due to the complaints being withdrawn. However, there had been prima facie evidence resulting in the initiation of investigations.

It was confirmed that in certain situations, the Monitoring Officer may continue to investigate a complaint where the complainant has withdrawn their complaint. However, this decision would need to be considered in the context of the potential sanctions available.

There were resource implications of processing complaints for both the Council and the subject of the complaint. Some councillors would seek legal advice when a complaint was being investigated.

The Borough Solicitor noted that the power of political groups to investigate and sanction Members was greater than the Council had. Many of the cases discussed in the standing report Update on Standards Matters were concerned with Independents who were not managed by a party system.

In response to questions about disclosure requirements, the Borough Solicitor explained that there were no formal rules. The Information Commissioner’s Office gave support to the principle of confidentiality until or unless the complaint was proven. Where an investigation finds a breach of the Code of Conduct, the report would be taken to a Standards Committee hearing and would likely be disclosed at that point.

The Chair queried when an anonymous complaint would be accepted. The Borough Solicitor suggested that this might be the case when a complainant alleges that they had been threatened or there was a reason for them to be concerned. Complainants were asked if they wished to be treated as anonymous but most declined. Sometimes they do request anonymity but due to the content of the complaint their identity would be obvious when the councillor was informed. When the Borough Solicitor has explained this to the complainants, they have agreed not to remain anonymous. In principle, anonymous complaints would be difficult for a councillor to defend themselves against. It was noted that the Council had good whistleblowing policies.

RESOLVED –

THAT the contents of the report be noted.

Report of the Borough Solicitor.

This report brings to Members’ attention recent standards news items for information and updates on actions from the previous Standards Committee meeting.

Consideration was given to the report of the Borough Solicitor.

With regard to the six-month attendance rule for councillors, the Borough Solicitor confirmed that the local authority could approve a reason for failing to attend meetings before the six-month period ended, preventing disqualification. Committee Services had a system to monitor attendance and to warn the councillor and group whip(s) after three to four months of non-attendance. It was noted that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the disqualification had been disapplied in law. There was a discussion about which meetings of the authority counted when considering attendance under Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972. It was suggested that the clearest examples were full Council and committees of the authority.

Following on from the West Northamptonshire Council case, it was agreed that officers write to Planning Committee about predetermination being found where a councillor made clear a firm view at a meeting prior to hearing the officer presentation or any deputations.

ACTION: Borough Solicitor

Members discussed the recording of a councillor’s contacts with planning officers on specific applications. It was suggested that this was more an issue for councillors who sat on Planning Committee than for ward councillors.

The Chair suggested that, while the councillor at London Borough of Bromley had not shown bias by voting for a planning application by an NHS trust where he was a governor, another option would have been to speak in support and withdraw from the meeting. This approach would have saved money on legal costs. With regard to the Chair requesting officer advice at a meeting, it would be challenging to provide such advice in public and would be preferable to address prior to the meeting. It was acknowledged that Members who felt that they were able to approach an application with an open mind might feel they had a responsibility to participate but the risk of a legal challenge in such cases was high with planning permissions worth millions of pounds. It was confirmed that bias and predetermination was addressed in mandatory training for Planning Committee members.

RESOLVED –

THAT the contents of the report be noted.

Report of the Borough Solicitor.

This report sets out the record of standards information and guidance issued to Members of the Council. 

Consideration was given to the report of the Borough Solicitor.

RESOLVED –

THAT the record of standards guidance be noted.

There was no urgent business.