Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the STANDARDS COMMITTEE of HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at The Castle, Winchester on 25 July 2006.

PRESENT:

Councillors: J.V. Bryant; (Chairman); Mrs E.M. Byrom; B.D. Dash (Deputising for Councillor A.R. Ludlow); Jo Kelly; R.J. Kimber; A.W. Rice, TD

Independent Members: Mr G. Ellis; Mr M. James

1. APOLOGIES

    Apologies for absence were received from Councillor A. R. Ludlow

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should normally at the time of the debate, declare their interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed.

3. MINUTES

    The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 October 2004 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

4. AUDIT COMMISSION REPORT ON ETHICAL GOVERNANCE AT THE COUNTY COUNCIL

    The Committee considered the report of the Head of Corporate and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer and the Chief Internal Auditor (Item 4 in the Minute Book) following a corporate ethical governance survey undertaken by the Audit Commission on the County Council's behalf. The purpose of the survey had been objectively to assess the County Council's arrangements for ethical governance and whether effective mechanisms existed for ensuring high standards of conduct. The report had been considered by the Governance Committee at its meeting on 28 June 2006.

    The Committee welcomed the actions set out in paragraph 1.3 of the report through which the County Council had actively sought to improve its ethical governance framework. The Committee also considered individually each of the recommendations which the Audit Commission had made for further action. In relation to the appointment of independent members to the Standards Committee, the Committee was disappointed that the Audit Commission, when it published its report in March 2006, appeared not to have taken account of the prompt action taken by the County Council to ensure that, in the exceptional circumstances then prevailing, the Standards Committee had promptly been restored to its full complement of independent members. In relation to appointing an independent chairman of the Standards Committee, the Committee endorsed the view expressed by the Governance Committee in October 2005 that the Chairman of the Committee should continue to be appointed from amongst County Councillors. As to the suggestion that a majority of members of the Standards Committee should be independent persons, the Committee noted that this approach was no longer favoured by the Government. The Committee also supported the Monitoring Officer's comments in relation to the Register of Members' Interests and internet access to it but noted that the internet approach had been adopted by some local authorities.

    With regard to ethical governance awareness, the Committee endorsed the view expressed by the Audit Commission that councillors and officers should be well informed about ethical governance issues. The Committee noted the expansion of members' training events which had taken place at the County Council since the County Council elections in 2005 and the arrangements planned for 4 and 5 October 2006 for further awareness events. The Committee also endorsed the conclusion of the Governance Committee that attendance at these events run by the Head of Corporate and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer should be deemed by all members of the County Council to be compulsory. The Committee welcomed the advice of the Monitoring Officer that, after the recent ethical governance events for members, the presentations had been circulated electronically to all members of the County Council, and also that, since the meeting of the Governance Committee, progress had been made with preparations for an e-survey of all members of the County Council as to ethical governance awareness. The Monitoring Officer planned to undertake the survey in the autumn. The Committee also noted the steps taken since the meeting of the Governance Committee to give more publicity to the County Council's arrangements for ethical governance and their successes by including references, where appropriate, weaved into existing press releases. The Committee also endorsed the view expressed by the Monitoring Officer in relation to the Tenth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Graham Committee) that the Government first needed to respond to it.

    RESOLVED:

    a) That the Audit Commission's view that standards of conduct at the County Council are high be endorsed;

    b) That the responses to the Audit Commission's recommendations set out in paragraph 2.1.1 to 2.1.7 of the Head of Corporate and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer's report be approved; and

    c) That, with particular reference to ethical governance awareness, members of the County Council be advised that the Committee considers that attendance at ethical governance awareness training events run by the County Council should be deemed to be compulsory.

5. COMPLAINT REFERRED TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL BY THE STANDARDS BOARD FOR ENGLAND IN RESPECT OF COUNCILLOR MARK COOPER

    The Committee considered the report of the Head of Corporate and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer (Item 5a in the Minute Book) concerning a complaint referred to the County Council by the Standards Board for England in respect of Councillor Mark Cooper.

    The Committee thanked Mr. Kevin Gardner, the Head of the County Council's Legal Practice and Deputy Monitoring Officer, for the thoroughness and clarity of his report of the investigation he had carried out into the allegation of failure to comply with the Members' Code of Conduct which had been made to the Standards Board.

    Whilst endorsing the investigating officer's conclusion that there did not appear to have been a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct on the part of Councillor Cooper, the Committee did consider whether there were lessons to be learned by the Council should similar circumstances arise at any time in the future. The Committee was mindful that, whilst existing guidance could be interpreted as allowing no room for discretion in terms of whether or not formally to report the possibility of a breach of the Code of Conduct to the Standards Board, a key issue before doing so was the need for a member to have reasonable belief that a failure to comply had occurred. The Monitoring Officer was asked to make particular reference to the relevant procedures and their operation in his next round of ethical awareness briefings.

    RESOLVED:

    a) that the Standards Committee agrees with the recommendation of the investigating officer into the complaint received against Councillor Mark Cooper that there does not appear to have been any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct on the part of Councillor Cooper and that, therefore, the Standards Committee will take no further action in respect of that complaint;

    b) that the Monitoring Officer notify Councillor Cooper, the complainant and the Standards Board of the outcomes of the investigation and the conclusion of the Standards Committee and takes all other necessary procedural actions;

    c) that the Monitoring Officer bring to the attention of members at the forthcoming ethical governance briefings in October 2006 lessons learned from following the Standards Board for England's required procedures.

6. COMPLAINT REFERRED TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL BY THE STANDARDS BOARD FOR ENGLAND

    The Committee considered the report of the Head of Corporate and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer (Item 5 in the Minute Book) following the receipt of a complaint by the Board concerning one of the County Council's co-opted members, the allegation being that the member failed to comply with the Members' Code of Conduct. The Board had referred the complaint to the County Council for investigation and the complaint had been investigated by Mr. Kevin Gardner, Head of the County Council's Legal Practice and Deputy Monitoring Officer. Mr. Gardner had come to the conclusion that there was a case to answer.

    Accordingly the Committee, as required, established a sub-committee of three members to hear and determine the complaint in accordance with the advice contained in the report of the Head of Corporate and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer.

    RESOLVED:

    a) that Mr. Ellis, Mr. James and Councillor Jo Kelly be appointed members of a sub-committee to hear and determine this complaint and that Councillors Ludlow, Kimber and Mrs. Byrom be appointed as substitutes on the sub-committee should, for any reason, one of the members appointed under be unable to attend the hearing, the date of which had yet to be agreed;

    b) that Mr James be appointed Chairman of the sub-committee;

    c) that the Monitoring Officer arrange the hearing into this complaint to take place within a period of three months from the date of the investigating officer's report and that the Monitoring Officer be empowered to take all necessary actions leading up to and including the hearing itself.