Archived decisions

William Tandoh

Local Democracy Directorate

Department for Communities and Local

Government

5/G10, Eland House

Bressenden Place, LONDON SW1E 5DU

Dear Mr Tandoh

REVISED MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS

Thank you for your letter of 22 January 2007 and for the opportunity to respond to the above.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority would wish the Government to take into account the following comments, which are set against the respective numbered questions in the consultation.

Question 1

Yes, the balance is appropriate given the current interpretation of Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Question 2

Yes, it is appropriate to limit those actions which may constitute a failure to comply with the revised Code to those activities which have been found to be unlawful by the Courts. This has the benefit of an external objective Tribunal having arrived at a decision that reflects a member's failure to comply with the basic rules of society. Clarification should, however, be given as to whether minor traffic violations fall into the criminal criteria.

Question 3

The Publicity Code is useful guidance supplementing the provisions of the Local Government Act 1986.

In the light of the reinforcement of paragraph 5(b)(ii), it is also useful that paragraph 5(b)(iii) has been added to stress the importance of how Council resources should be used. The Publicity Code is well understood and it would be a retrograde step to remove it.

Question 4

This provision goes further than it needs to. The perceived lacuna is that there is no requirement for the Register of Gifts and Hospitality to be publicly available, although most Councils, including Hampshire County Council do make it available. Rather than add this to the existing bureaucracy of the Register of Interests, the better solution would be a simple requirement for the Register of Gifts and Hospitality to be available for public inspection.

Question 5

The existing definitions already embrace a very wide group of people connected to the member. Is there any evidence to justify the definitions of who might be affected by a member's decision being extended even further.

There is even confusion in the consultation paper as to who might be affected. The Code refers to those with a "close personal association" with the member; whereas the question in the consultation refers to "personal acquaintances" there is a chasm between the two!

Most members in carrying out their duties come into contact with hundreds if not thousands of people. To extend the relationships covered by this provision is very likely to result in many more unnecessary declarations of interest taking place. There is also the added likelihood of members not being aware of what the interests of this extended group are.

This proposal should be deleted.

Question 6

Yes

Question 7

The intention in the Code to allow members greater opportunity to make representations to a committee, especially when they wish to communicate the views of their constituents is certainly the correct one.

There is, however, confusion within the revised Code as to how this will be achieved and the relationship with paragraph 11(1)(a).

Thus, paragraph 9(3) allows any member, with any type of prejudicial interest (not only those with a public service interest) to make representations to a meeting (with the consent of the meeting). This could well include the member who lives adjacent to a proposed quarry site attending the Planning Committee, even though the member has no role representing the constituents of that area. Is that what was intended? It had been assumed that this greater flexibility would apply only where the member had a public service interest, not also where he/she had a direct, even financial interest.

Furthermore, if any member with any type of prejudicial interest can potentially make representations to a relevant committee, what is the purpose of paragraph 11 which requires a member with a prejudicial interest to withdraw from the meeting room and not to seek improperly to influence a decision about the matter. The Standards Board has held that to talk to other members about a matter in respect of which they have a prejudicial interest falls foul of this provision. And yet paragraph 9(3) allows such members to do precisely that at a meeting.

The only logic that can be made out of these provisions is that paragraph 9(3) was intended to apply where the member's prejudicial interest arose solely out of a public service interest. Is that what was intended?

In this context I should also add that only in the interpretation sub paragraph of 11 i.e. 11(3) is there made reference to a "public service interest". The operational paragraphs i.e. 11(1) and (2) make no reference to such an interest, which is confusing.

Question 8

We are content with "he or she".

Yours sincerely

Jeff Pattison

On behalf of the Clerk to Hampshire Fire & Rescue Authority