To consider the attached advice from the Standards Board for England, in relation to the Relevant Authorities (Standards Committees) (Dispensations) Regulations 2002. 

Wards: County Wide

Members considered a report outlining advice issued by the Standards Board for England (SBE) in respect of the Relevant Authorities (Standards Committees) (Dispensations) Regulations 2002.  The Committee had decided that it was necessary to seek further advice, following a number of requests for dispensations from town and parish councils, where the number of members seeking the dispensation comprised less than 50% of the membership.  The Committee felt that the wording of 3(1)(a)(i) of the Regulations was ambiguous, and questioned the exact meanings of the words “entitled” and “required”, in the phrase “where the number of councillors that are prohibited from participating in the business of the council exceeds 50% of those who are entitled or required to participate”.  Members had interpreted “entitled” as referring to the whole membership, but had been uncertain about whether ”required” word might be a reference to a quorum. 

The Committee noted that the advice from the SBE was not definitive, and did not relate to any specific situation.  The SBE had expressed an opinion that the wording did not refer to a quorum in general, and that “entitled” meant all members (including co-optees) who were on a particular committee.  The advice suggested that the word “required” was intended to enable a dispensation to be granted by the Standards Committee, which would only be effective if non-attendance of the member in question would mean that the meeting could not take place. 

Furthermore, the SBE agreed that the Regulations were ambiguous, and that it was a matter for the Standards Committee to interpret them as best it could.  The SBE said that it was unlikely that an Ethical Standards Officer would challenge any reasonable interpretation of the Regulations.  The SBE had also suggested that the Department of Communities and Local Government might offer a more definitive interpretation of the Regulations, being the body which succeeded the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which had drafted them. 

The Chairman suggested that he might write to the Minister (Phil Woolas) to pursue the question of ambiguity, and to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to see whether this point was taken when the Regulations were considered by them.  The Committee agreed. 

The Committee felt that the most practical approach to interpretation was to consider the Regulations’ overall aim, which was to ensure that town and parish council business could proceed unimpeded.  It was also important to acknowledge that all town and parish councils in the position of requesting a dispensation were openly attempting to do what was right, and adhere to the Code of Conduct.  Bearing these factors in mind, members decided that a dispensation might be granted when the application was for less than 50% of the membership, if a decision not to grant the dispensation would mean that the town or parish council would not be able to transact its business efficiently.  The Committee emphasised that each application would be considered on its own merits, however, and that no blanket rule would apply. 

During consideration of this item, Members amended the Application Form for a Dispensation so that it required more detailed information. 

RESOLVED:   (unanimously) that

                        (i)         the advice from the SBE be noted;

(ii)               each application for a dispensation be considered on its own merits, and if appropriate, the Standards Committee  grant a dispensation to a town or parish council for less than 50% of the membership, if not to do so would mean that the town or parish council would be unable to transact its business effectively; and

(iii)             the Application Form for a Dispensation be amended, to ascertain the following:

·         What is the membership of the council?

·         What is the quorum of the council?

·         How is business being impeded in the absence of a dispensation (for example, a village hall matter where some members are currently exempt because they are village hall trustees)?

·         Are there any other factors which might help the Standards Committee to reach a decision?