Agenda and minutes

None.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2006, attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2006 be received and approved and the chair be authorised to sign them.

[Under minute 21, the Committee noted licensing training was being planned for the new year. Councillors and Independent Members would be contacted once the date was confirmed.]

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Victor Mishiku and Councillor James Mumford on agenda item five.

This report draws attention to an issue which has been raised in relation to the table in the Planning Protocol, which itself forms part of the Members’ Protocol. The question concerns the alignment of the contents of the table with the contents of the Protocol itself, and also with considerations of human rights. The report proposes the Committee consider the situation, and either propose some changes, or consult on possible changes to the Protocol.

Report of the Head of Legal Services attached.

1. The following sections of the Planning Protocol be reviewed:

·                    Paragraph C1 relating to the lobbying of voting Members

·                    Section D relating to site visits

·                    Section G relating to development proposals submitted by Members and officers

·                    The table at the end of the Protocol.

2. Consultation take place with relevant Councillors, officers and relevant local amenity societies and residents’ groups.

[The Committee noted the table at the end of the Planning Protocol might not be entirely consistent with the rest of the text of the document. It had also been approved before much case law had developed on human rights, and would benefit from a review.

It was agreed the human rights of people and organisations connected with Members must be respected. The same applied to officers, whose rights could also be affected by Section G of the Protocol.

It was agreed thorough but swift consultation was needed on the points in issue. It should include local organisations with an interest in the planning process, as well as Members and officers.

The Committee heard representations from Mr Victor Mishiku whose points included:

·                    Disagreement with paragraph C1 of the Planning Protocol as he felt Members should be able to see letters of representation in their entirety.

·                    Site visits were very important. Section D of the Protocol needed to be more positive about them.

The Committee heard representations from Councillor James Mumford whose points included:

·                    The Baker case had established others, such as dependents and associates of Members, had rights to speak or be represented even when Councillors themselves did not.

·                    Under the Protocol, Members could be censured for reading letters of representation sitting on the Council’s own website. Was this reasonable?

·                    Improper representations or lobbying was done out of sight of officers. Proper representations should be available in full to all – Members included.

·                    Partners and family members of Councillors should not have their own right to freedom of expression removed by the Protocol.]

This report summarises the contents of the fourth review of cases published by the Standards Board for England giving an overview of recent issues arising nationally from allegations of breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Report of the Head of Legal Services attached.

The report be noted.

[The Committee agreed it was always very useful to look at previous decisions, as they would help if similar situations ever arose in Richmond. The increasing trend of cases going to local investigation was noted.]

The Government published its Local Government White Paper “Strong and Prosperous Communities” at the end of October. This sets out its vision for local governance and whilst it does not make any significant changes, it does give local authorities a number of additional duties whilst also outlining a number of challenges for councils. But alongside these challenges the White Paper also proposes a less controlling performance regime with a reduction in the number of targets councils have to measure and report. This paper sets out the proposals in the White Paper along with the potential implications for Richmond upon Thames.

This is a copy of the Cabinet report for 4 December. The most relevant sections for the Standards Committee are 3.17 – 3.19.

Report of the Chief Executive attached.

The report be noted.

[The Committee noted one part of the White Paper suggested Standards Committees should become community leaders on ethical issues. It was unclear exactly how this would be achieved and it needed further reflection.]

This report considers the training which has been made available to Councillors since October 2006. It includes future training arrangements for Councillors generally in relation to Standards issues, and the training needs of Members of this Committee, including Councillors who joined at its July meeting and new independent Members whose first formal meeting was in October. In addition, the report considers future training in relation to any new Code of Conduct the Government may put in place.

This item also allows the Committee to discuss anything arising from the training session on 24 November.

Report of the Head of Legal Services attached.

1. No further action be proposed for the overall training of Councillors or co-optees, save newly appointed co-optees should be contacted about training on standards.

2. The proposals in the report be suitable to meet the future needs of the Committee and Council in relation to standards training. 

[A Member training group, led by Councillor Stanier, was being set up to look at Councillor training from a more personal level.

Given the likely revisions to the Code of Conduct, Members would need to be retrained on it. The programme needed to be agreed at the Committee’s February meeting, in time to start in May when the new Code came into effect.

It was suggested all future training sessions included participatory elements as Members found these very useful. Role-play, especially for training on a hearing would be helpful. Newer Councillors and co-optees appreciated the chance to share experiences and learn from one another.

Independent Members felt training sessions limited to themselves and Overview and Scrutiny Committee co-optees were needed as they had different issues and concerns to Councillors.

Standards surgeries were suggested as an option. This would allow Councillors to meet Standards Committee Members and discuss problems or ask questions in an informal setting.]

To discuss proposed participation in an ethical audit to be conducted by the Improvement and Development Agency, on which an exploratory meeting is to be held shortly before the meeting of the Committee.

The item be noted and welcomed.

[The Chair, Head of Legal Services and Chief Executive had met with the principal consultant and project leader from the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) about the proposed audit.

It was suggested work took place in late February, coinciding with the Committee’s meeting on the 28th, which would be observed. Interviews would also take place with Committee’s Chair, senior Councillors and officers. There would be group meetings for Standards Committee Members, other Councillors, and for staff who had significant dealings with Councillors.]

The Committee has been circulated links to the seminars, debates and outcomes from this year’s Standards Board Annual Assembly. This is an opportunity to discuss anything arising from that.

1. The item be noted.

2. Under Council Procedure Rule 22, Mr Derek Wheatley be instructed to leave the Committee for the remainder of the meeting.

[The Committee agreed it would be useful to join any regional groups of independent members of Standards Committees that were being set up. The Standards Board was also proposing to run roadshows, although the next one in London was not expected until June 2007.]