Apologies were received from Councillor Jones and Steven Gould.

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

None.

To approve the minutes of the last Standards Committee meeting held on 23 September 2008 and the last Standards Initial Assessment Sub-Committee held on 29 September 2008, attached.

The Minutes of the Standards Committee meeting held on 23 September 2008 and the Standards Initial Assessment Sub-Committee held on 29 September 2008 be received and approved and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Further to Minute 19, the Chair reported that the preparation of a flow chart, showing various stages of the complaints process, had been deferred pending the receipt of further information from the Standards Board.

Further to Minute 23, the Chair reported that the report on the Members’ Computer Protocol had been deferred to the April meeting in the light of developments enabling Members to access Council I.T. from their own rather than Council computers.

This report sets out a revised Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy and Whistleblowing Policy, which have been endorsed by the Audit Committee, for consideration and recommendation to Council.

The report of the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management is attached.

1.   That, subject to amendments detailed below, the revised Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy be endorsed and that the Strategy be recommended to the Council for adoption as Appendix C to the Member’ Protocol for inclusion in the Council’s Constitution, to replace the existing version.

2.   That, subject to the amendments detailed below, the revised Whistleblowing Policy be endorsed and that policy be recommended to Council for inclusion in the Council’s Constitution, to replace the existing version.

The Joint Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management reported that good practice in corporate governance required regular review of the Council’s key policies and procedures.  The Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy had been subject to independent review against best practice and minor changes had been made, mainly to include recent legislation.  A recent audit of Whistleblowing procedures had been undertaken and minor amendments made to address any gaps identifies and to reflect best practice.  The most significant change was that responsibility for the corporate recording, monitoring and review of whistleblowing cases now rested with the Director of Finance and Corporate Services. Training for officers was planned for early next year.

Members broadly welcomed the documents and stressed the need to regularly publicise hotline numbers, for example by way of posters and on payslips.

With regard to the Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy, a number of formatting changes were suggested, including cross-referencing the various elements of the strategy with the later sections in which they were described.

With regard to the Whistle Blowing Policy, it was suggested that the Chair of Audit Committee should be added to the list of contacts and that the list of outside bodies and the email address for independent advice be amended.  

This report summarises the key issues raised at the Annual Assembly of Standards Committees, at which the Committee was represented by the Chair, a Vice-Chair (Mr Greggains) and the Monitoring Officer.

The report of the Chair, Vice-Chair and Head of Legal and Electoral Services is attached.

That the report be noted.

The Chair reported that one of the key messages from the Assembly was the need for Standards Committees to communicate more effectively to the public and to partner organisations, making better use of the Council website.  The role of senior officers was also important, especially as it was their responsibility to train staff in ethical standards and to promote the culture within the Council.

The Chair also reported on proposals to set up a Forum for Chairs of London Borough Standards Committees.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has issued a consultation paper asking for views on a range of issues relating to suggested changes to the Members’ Code of Conduct and also proposing the introduction of a national Code of Conduct for all employees in local government. Views are sought by 24 December, with a view to implementation by May 2009.

1.   That the suggested response at Appendix B be submitted subject to suggested modifications and the Head of Legal and Electoral Services be authorised to finalise and submit the response.

2.   That the attention of the Executive be drawn to the suggested Code of Conduct for Employees

Members expressed broad dissatisfaction with the suggested changes to Members’ Code of Conduct, questioning the rationale for many of the proposals.  Amongst the points raised were;

Q1 – Members’ Conduct when acting in their non-official capacity

It was agreed that the Code should apply to some conduct in a member’s private life, while not unduly restricting the private lives of those in public life. However, it was recognised that some members would have a higher public profile than others and the expectations of the public of those they had elected was important.  A broad view of “disrepute” had the advantage of being able to match those expectations.  The suggested changes did not appear to have significant advantages and could well create problems.

Q2 – Definition of “criminal offence”

The Committee did not support the exemption of offences which result in a fixed penalty notice

Q6 – Other drafting amendments

1.6.2 Registration of gifts and hospitality – there was a need to identify the reasons why the donor was providing the gift or hospitality, if known

1.6.5 Application to suspended members – It was suggested that a protocol should be drawn up setting out the status of a suspended member 

1.6.8 Gifts and Hospitality – It was agreed that the threshold should be increased to £50

1.6.9 Disclosure of Personal Interests – The suggested amendment to Para 9 (1) was amended to read “…at the commencement of the meeting or at such later time during the meeting…”

1.8.2 Private Representations – it was agreed that the provisions currently in the Welsh Members’ Code should apply

Generally it was not helpful for there to be regular revisions to the Members’ Code and DCLG should be realistic as to the complexities of training on a code which was subject to regular change.

Although the proposed Code of Conduct for Employees was a matter for the Executive rather than the Committee, Members had considerable concerns about such a Code, including its wording and enforceability.  They did not accept the proposal that it should not be applied to employees in professions covered by their own code of conduct.  More generally it would appear preferable for there to be broad general principles and then for authorities to take those into account when setting local codes of employee conduct.

The Adjudication Panel for England has Guidance on when it might be appropriate for a Standards Committee to refer a matter for determination by the Adjudication Panel for England. Secondly the Standards Board for England has issued its latest Review of Cases considered.

This report introduces both publications.

The report of the Head of Legal and Electoral Services is attached.

That the report be noted.

The Committee considered and noted:

• Guidance from the Adjudication Panel for England on when it might be appropriate for a Standards Committee to refer a matter for determination by the Panel.
• The Standards Board for England’s latest case review.

This report identifies the need to amend the terms of reference of the Initial Assessment Sub-Committee and suggests a minor change of name.

The report of the Head of Democratic Services and Head of Legal and Electoral Services attached.

That the Initial Assessment Sub-Committee be re-named the Assessment Sub-Committee with immediate effect and its terms of reference be amended as set out at Appendix A to the report.

The Committee agreed additions to the Sub-Committee’s terms of reference to provide for consideration of reports back from the Monitoring Officer on referrals for other action and, also, in certain exceptional circumstances.

In view of the wider functions of the Sub-Committee it was agreed to omit “Initial” from its title.

The Committee should appoint the memberships of its Sub-Committees.

The report of the Head of Democratic Services is attached.

(1)   That the following members be appointed to the Standards Assessment Sub-Committee from 1 January 2009 until 31 March 2009:

Ms Fraser, Mr Greggains, Mrs Hill, Councillor King, Councillor Parsons and Councillor Stanier.

(2)   That the following members be appointed to the Standards Review Sub-Committee from 1 January 2009 until 31 March 2009:

Councillor Bennett, Mr Buckley, Mr Gould, Rev Jackson and Councillor Jones.

The Committee is requested to approve the updated code of practice on Gifts and Hospitality to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

The report of the Head of Democratic Services is attached.

That, subject to the amendments detailed below, the code of practice attached at Appendix A to the report be approved.

The Committee considered the updated code of practice on Gifts and Hospitality to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and suggested the following amendments:

• The code should also apply to gifts and hospitality to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor’s Consorts
• Under “Wine and Champagne”, the word “usually” should be deleted from “These are usually kept for use in raffles…..”
• Under “Declarations of Gifts and Hospitality” the second sentence be amended to read “…if the Mayor or Deputy Mayor receive gifts and hospitality over the value of £25 in his/her ordinary Councillor role…“

This item enables members of the Committee to provide any relevant feedback in relation to the meetings that they have attended as observers since the last meeting.

None.

The Committee’s work programme sets out the planned topics for the year.

The report of the Head of Democratic Services is attached.

That the work programme be noted.

The Head of Legal and Electoral Services reported that the Audit Commission’s new criteria for assessing the use of resources by the authority included a new range of criteria relating to ethical governance, including for partnerships.  Accordingly he would be discussing this matter with some Members of the Committee prior to the next meeting. It was felt that, in broad terms, the General Principles of Public Life should guide the community generally.

It was suggested that partner organisations be consulted on their views of the Council’s standards of ethical governance.