To respond to the attached consultation on the revised Code of Conduct for Local Authority Members. 

Wards: County Wide

Members considered the consultation issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government, on the proposed revised Model Code of Conduct fro Local Authority Members. They made the following general comments:

·         There was no mention of an increase in powers for Standards Committee in relation to the sanctions that they could impose at hearings. Members felt that these powers should be strengthened in order to make the Code of Conduct more robust. They made particular reference to the length of suspension that could be imposed on a member who was the subject of a hearing. They were of the opinion that three months was inadequate in many cases, especially if a parish or town council only met every two months. The Committee reiterated that a maximum of twelve months was a more realistic sanction.

·         The proposed Code did not go far enough in terms of clarifying the meanings of Personal and Prejudicial interests. The Committee also expressed concern that DEFRA's Local Access Forums used the terms "direct" and "indirect" when referring to interests, which put one Government Department out-of-step with the others. This created the potential for confusion amongst councillors who were also members of the forums and had to use two different terminologies.

In addition, the Committee made the following additional points about the Commentary on the Detailed Amendments Proposed:

·         Bullying: Guidance on bullying should be clear and straightforward. Members felt that the new Code provided the correct tone, in that it would retain the phrase "a member must treat others with respect", and would add to it that members must not bully any person. In line with the proposals, the Committee felt that a specific definition of bullying should not be included in the Code because it would be too complex and might be difficult to apply.

·         Disclosure of Confidential Information: There needed to be a distinction between attributable disclosure and leaks.  The latter would not be in the spirit of the Code and should not be protected.

·         Behaviour Outside Official Duties: The proposals reflected the judgement of Collins J on the Mayor of London's recent High Court Appeal. The Committee felt that the definitions were too narrow. In particular, to discount all behaviour in instances when a member had not been convicted by a court, was not conducive to good behaviour, and went against the spirit of the Code.

·         Publicity Code: Members expressed an opinion that guidance on publicity should be included explicitly in the Code, as opposed simply to making reference to the Government's Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

·         Reporting Breaches of the Code and Proscribing Intimidation: The Head of Legal and Democratic Services emphasised that the proposals would increase pressure on the Monitoring Officer's role because the likely outcome was that the number of complaints received would increase.

·         Definition of Personal Interests: The Head of Legal and Democratic Services made the point that the proposals did not take account of bias, which he felt was a significant omission. Members agreed that the public perception of an interest could sometimes carry great significance, and the Code should reflect this.

·         Public Service Interests: The Committee noted that the proposals would not address all of the difficulties which might arise when granting dispensations, although they would probably reduce the number of problems experienced.

RESOLVED: (unanimously) that the Chairman write to the Department of Communities and Local Government (and copy the letter to the Herefordshire Association of Local Councils), conveying the Standards Committee’s views on the proposed amendments to the Model Code of Conduct for Local Authority Members, by the closing date of 09 March 2007.