Standards Committee (Further Provisions) England Regulations 2009

Report: 6
Date: 23 September 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

Regulations came into force on 15 June dealing with the following matters:

• suspension of initial assessment functions
• joint standards committees; and
• dispensations

This report gives information about these and asks for the Committee’s view on the possibility of establishing a joint Standards Committee.

A. Recommendation

That the Committee

1. Notes the provisions of these regulations; and
2. Indicates whether it wishes the officers to discuss with the Greater London Authority and the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority the possibility of establishing a joint committee, and if so which model is favoured.

B. Supporting information

1. The Standards Committee (Further Provisions) Regulations 2009 came into force on 15 June. A copy of the regulations is attached as Appendix 1. These regulations deal with the following matters:

• suspension of initial assessment functions
• joint standards committees; and
• dispensations

Suspension of initial assessment functions

2. The Local Government Act 2000 (as amended) enables the Standards Board for England (SBE) to give a direction which has the effect of suspending the “initial assessment” functions of a Standards Committee (i.e. the functions of the Assessment and Review Sub-Committees to decide whether or not to take further action on allegations that a member has breached the Code of Conduct).

3. An intervention can be triggered by the Standards Board where:

• it is of the view that the authority’s Standards Committee has failed:
  • to have regard to SBE guidance;
  • to comply with a direction from SBE;
  • to carry out its functions within a reasonable time or in a reasonable manner;
• it is of the view that the authority’s Monitoring Officer has failed to carry out his/her functions within a reasonable time or in a reasonable manner; or
• the authority or its Standards Committee has requested the Standards Board to intervene.

4. Where the Standards Board considers intervention, it must give the authority notice of its intentions and reasons, and give the authority at least 28 days to respond before making a direction. The effect of a direction is to transfer the initial assessment function to either the Standards Board itself or, with their agreement, to the Standards Committee of another named authority (“substitute authority”). In practice, the Standards Board is not staffed up to carry out the initial assessment function, the preferred route is likely to be transfer of the function to a substitute authority, but that is also likely to be dependent on the two authorities reaching agreement on costs.

5. During the period of the intervention, the Standards Board, or the Standards Committee of the other named authority, would conduct Assessment and Review Sub-Committees as if it were the MPA, and could decide to refer the allegation for a local Monitoring Officer or a Standards Board investigation, alternative action or no action, as appropriate. The intervention is strictly in respect of the Assessment and Review Sub-Committee functions, and so the regulations give a discretion:

• to the SBE to use their own investigators, and the Adjudication Panel for hearings;
• to the substitute authority to use its own Monitoring Officer for investigations and its own Hearings Committee or Sub-Committee; and
• to the SBE or the substitute authority (whichever is dealing with the matter) to refer to Monitoring Officer and / or the Hearings Committee or Sub-Committee of the original authority whose initial assessment functions have been suspended.

6. An intervention can be terminated by the Standards Board at any time.

Joint Standards Committees

7. The regulations give discretion for two or more authorities to set up a joint standards committee. This joint standards committee could discharge all of each authority’s standards functions or could be established to discharge some of those functions. Two provisos are relevant:

• police authorities cannot join with each other to create joint standards committees (the Local Government Act prevents them from having any of their functions carried out by another police authority). However a police authority can form a joint standards committee with other types of local authority
• a joint standards committee can only carry out any of the functions of a standards committee granted by or under Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 or Part 1 of the Local Government & Housing Act 1989. Some authorities have given their standards committees other functions – for example the MPA standards committee’s terms of reference include oversight of the Freedom of Information function. These functions could not be carried out by a joint committee

8. The Standards Board have identified three model structures as the most practical ways of operating joint arrangements:

9. Model A: A joint standards committee to receive written allegations and requests for a review, and to decide what action to take in relation to them. The defining feature of this model is that authorities will be able to retain their own standards committee. Furthermore, aside from receiving and assessing allegations and reviews, the authority’s own standards committee will perform all other functions independently.

10. An advantage of this model structure is that it will help reduce the likelihood of standards committee members being conflicted out of a stage of the complaints process. The regulations state that standards committee members who have been involved in decision making on the initial assessment of a complaint must not take part in the review of that decision. Forming a joint standards committee will increase the number of standards committee members, and so reduce the chance of conflicts of interests occurring. This model also allows standards committees to share resources when assessing allegations, yet at the same time allows them to retain ownership of all other functions, including the hearing and determination processes. This will ensure that individual standards committees are applying sanctions based on their own local knowledge and are taking responsibility for implementing standards in their own local authorities.

11. Model B: A joint standards committee to carry out the functions in Model A along with receiving and considering final investigation reports and conducting hearings, making findings and imposing sanctions. This model is an extension of Model A and will therefore also help to reduce the likelihood of standards committee members being conflicted out of a stage of the complaints process for the same reason. In addition, Model B offers an increased opportunity to reduce costs through holding joint hearings. However, when considering whether to adopt such a structure, authorities should bear in mind that the ability to draw on local knowledge when applying sanctions may be diminished. This potential lack of local knowledge becomes more important at this stage, given that much more information is available to the standards committee once an investigation has been conducted.

12. Model C: A joint standards committee to carry out all of the functions of a standards committee granted by or under Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Model C is most appropriate for single purpose authorities such as police or fire authorities. These authorities usually have less contact with the public than local authorities and are the source of fewer complaints, so they tend to need to meet less frequently to exercise their specific complaint-handling functions. A joint working arrangement could therefore be a more sensible use of resources. Establishing a joint standards committee in such situations should not lead to a weakening of the local standards framework in individual authorities. The same high levels of input expected of a single standards committee should also be applied to ensure that a culture of high standards is still developed within each participating authority.

13. A joint committee? Members are invited to consider whether they support the idea of a joint standards committee and, if so, which model. There appear to be clear advantages to having a joint committee for some or all of the functions and the best fit would be with the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA), not least because at least some of the membership of those three authorities is the same. The GLA Standards Committee deals with many more complaints against members than either the MPA or the LFEPA and has consequently developed (at both member and officer level) a greater expertise in handling these complaints. Because the MPA’s Standards Committee does not have a large membership, and only has two members independent of the Authority, the risk of members being conflicted out of particular cases is very real. This would be mitigated to a substantial extent by having a joint committee.

14. Members are asked to consider whether the possibility of a joint committee should be pursued and if so on the basis of which of these three models. All three have something to recommend them. Probably from the MPA’s point of view Model C, a joint committee carrying out all of the functions of a standards committee, would be preferable (provided it had reasonable representation on the joint committee). This is understood to be LFEPA’s favoured option. However, referring back to the second bullet point of para 7 above, the GLA Standards Committee has a wider remit than that set out in the legislation and the GLA might, therefore prefer an arrangement on the basis of Models A or B.

15. If members favour the establishment of a joint committee the next stage will be for the officers to discuss the practical arrangements for report back to the committee. The final MPA decisions will need to be taken by the full Authority.

Dispensations

16. The Local Government Act 2000 requires members and co-opted members of an Authority to register their interests in a register of interests maintained by the Monitoring Officer. The Local Government Act 2000 enables a member or co-opted member to participate in the business of the Authority in circumstances where they would otherwise be precluded due to an interest recorded on the register of interests if they act in accordance with a dispensation granted by the Standards Committee of the Authority. The Secretary of State has power under the 2000 Act to issue regulations which prescribe the circumstances in which dispensations may be granted.

17. The 2009 Regulations revoke The Relevant Authorities (Standards Committees) (Dispensations) Regulations 2000, which have governed the granting of dispensations to members by standards committees up to now. The 2009 Regulations prescribe the circumstances in which standards committees may now grant dispensations to members and co-opted members who would otherwise be prohibited from engaging in the business of the Authority.

18. A standards committee may grant a dispensation to a member or co-opted member in the following circumstances:

1. where the transaction of business of the authority would, but for the grant of any other dispensation in relation to that business, on each occasion on which the dispensation would apply, otherwise be impeded by, or as a result of, the mandatory provisions in the Members Code of Conduct because:
   1. the number of members of the authority prohibited from voting on the business of the authority at a meeting exceeds 50% of those members that, but for the granting of any dispensations relating to that business, would otherwise be entitled to vote on that business; or
   2. the number of members prohibited from voting on the business of the authority at a meeting would, but for the granting of any dispensations relating to that business, upset the political balance of that meeting to such an extent as to prejudice the outcome of voting in that meeting; and
2. the member has submitted a written request to the Standards Committee for a dispensation explaining why it is desirable.

19. When determining a request, the Standards Committee must have due regard to the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) above, the members’ written request, and to any other relevant circumstances of the case as to whether it is appropriate to grant the dispensation. The 2009 Regulations do not mention any timescales within which this process is to be conducted however, the Committee would require reasonable notice as it would have to comply with the statutory notice provisions regarding meetings etc.

20. A dispensation once granted can only be relied upon by the member for a period of four years from the date on which it was granted.

21. The 2009 Regulations require the Standards Committee to keep a written record of the existence, duration and nature of any dispensations granted and for the record to be kept with the members’ Registers of Interests maintained under the Local Government Act 2000.

22. The Members’ Notices of Registerable Interests are maintained by the Monitoring Officer and it is suggested that the record of dispensations granted is also kept by Monitoring Officer on behalf of the Committee with the Members’ Register of Interests.

C. Race and equality impact

There are no significant equalities or diversity implications. The MPA’s complaint handling process already takes account of equalities best practice and if joint arrangements are taken forward the officers will ensure that these are reflected in the joint operating practices.

D. Financial implications

If joint arrangements are progressed there may be some financial implications, for instance if one authority leads on supporting the joint committee and it is agreed that the participating authorities should bear a proportion of the cost. The financial implications cannot be assessed at this stage.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Simon Vile, Head of Corporate Secretariat, MPA

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback