To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Zara Davis and Sue Rossiter. Councillor David Snowdon deputised for Councillor Zara Davis, and Councillor Joshua Peck deputised for Councillor Carli Harper-Penman.

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Chief Executive.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Standards Committee held on 12^th January 2012.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12^th January 2012 be approved as a correct record of proceedings.

The Chair moved and it was agreed that the order of business be varied. Accordingly, agenda item 4.1 was considered as the first item of business, followed by 4.3 and 4.2.  The published agenda order was resumed after item 4.2 had been discussed.

David Galpin, Head of Legal Services, Community presented the report and highlighted the following salient points:

• There had been three authorisations to date;
• No inspections took place during the course of the year;
• The Protection of Freedom Bill had received Royal Assent and was now the Protection of Freedom Act.

The Chair remarked that the inspection of a licence for 24 hours appeared to be modest. Mr Galpin pointed out that this represented a breakthrough in terms of how the Council dealt with touting issues and enforcement was moving in the right direction.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

Isabella Freeman, Assistant Chief Executive, Legal Services presented the report.

The salient points were summarised as follows:

• There was still a statutory duty to promote and maintain a high conduct for Members. There was also a statutory requirement to have a Standards Committee and a need to deal with complaints under the new Code;
• The recommended Code as per Appendix 3 was an amended version of the current Code;
• Paragraph 3 – this still contained the general obligations [bullying, intimidation etc];
• Appendices 4 and 5 – contain two templates for alternative Codes;
• Pecuniary interests –to be defined and was awaiting further Guidance from Government.

New category of ‘Independent Person’

• The ‘Independent Person’ would be consulted when a complaint was received;
• The reasoning behind the introduction of an ‘Independent Person’ was to get rid of frivolous complaints and offer support and advice to the Monitoring officer if the complaint was presented to the Standards Committee;
• Where there was an investigation, the ‘Independent Person’ would have the ability to comment prior to the Committee hearing.

The following key proposals had been put forward:

• That existing independent Members be retained as co-optees;
• That the Standards Committee became an advisory Committee for full Council. Some of the key advantages of this model would be to enable the Committee to deal with other matters outside full Council, except in exceptional circumstances, and this would be in line with other local authorities.

Dealing with complaints

• Once a complaint was received, the Monitoring officer and ‘Independent Person’ would deal with it. If there was a serious breach of the Code, there would be a recommendation that the matter be referred to the Standards Committee. If there was no breach, the matter would remain confidential, and simply reported to the Committee on a quarterly basis;
• Page 32, paragraph 10 – sets out limited sanctions available under the new provisions, with the Member being able to carry out ward duties and attend full Council.

Some of the Members’ concerns were outlined as follows:

• One Member outlined his reservations as follows:

1.      The lack of detail and proper consultation with Members, thereby preventing them from properly engaging in the process and having the ability to influence the report;

2.      The lack of timescales and deadlines in the current system was of further concern as claims became protracted;

3.      Although there was no statutory right of appeal, the lack of a proper appeal process was deemed unacceptable;

4.      There was a real need for a cross-party discussion, with a view to it being submitted to the General Purpose Committee [as it impinged on the Council’s Constitution] and then on to full Council;

5.      The broader views of Members ought to be included in the process before it was submitted to full Council. It was essential that the document was ‘fit for purpose’ from the start.

For the purposes of encapsulating some of the key points of concern in the report, he highlighted the following:

o       Page 29, paragraph 4.10 -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.2

Hugh Sharkey, Service Head Procurement and Corporate Programmes introduced the report.

The following points were highlighted:

• The protocol governed the relationship between the Council and suppliers, and the conduct of Directors and employees;
• In order for suppliers to be on the Council’s payment system, they must comply with the protocol or demonstrate that they would adhere to the Council’s requirements;
• The Council’s Procurement Strategy had been refreshed;
• It was a requirement of the protocol that the relevant policies were in place before the formation of a contract.

Ms Isabella Freeman, Assistant Chief Executive, Legal Services added that the Council’s contract also encompassed Audit provisions to ensure compliance with policies relating to whistle blowing or equalities issues for instance.

Members made the following comments:

• That the Council’s “Fair trade” and ethical procurement policies should also be embraced. Mr Sharkey confirmed that the intention was to encapsulate all such policies in one place;
• What form of sanction was meted out when there was evidence of a breach by a contractor, as there appeared to be some confusion over the types of contracts that were covered by the Protocol. Mr Sharkey explained that remedies were available for non-performance of a contract and where a contractor was tardy in making a delivery for instance, they would be subject to damages. In the event that the contractor failed to provide a remedy, the Council was not obliged to honour the contract. Ms Freeman further clarified that, by virtue of specific clauses in the contract, contractors were forbidden from making untoward or political comments.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

There was none.