Update on the Standards regime

Report: 5
Date: 13 July 2011
By: Helen Sargeant, Solicitor and Monitoring Officer on behalf of the Chief Executive

Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide members with an update on the progress of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill and the Decentralisation and Localism Bill so far as they affect the Standards Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members note the contents of this report.
2. a further report is provided as to the progress of the Policing and Social Responsibility and the Decentralisation and Localism Bills, making any recommendations concerning implementation of the new ethical arrangements which may be necessary.

B. Supporting information

1. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill (PRSR) has passed through all of the Committee stages of the House of Commons and is now on its passage through the House of Lords. After two readings and 6 Committee sittings in the House of Lords, the PRSR is now at report stage. The first day of report stage took place on 29 June 2011, followed by a second day on 4 July. The next days for report stage are scheduled for 11 and 13 July 2011. Indications are that there will be a one-day ‘Third Reading’ on 19 July before the PRSR goes back to the House of Commons.

2. The House of Commons will be in summer recess from 19 July and the House of Lords on 20 July. Ministers have confirmed that there is no prospect of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime being implemented at the beginning of October. The APA state that their understanding for the reason for the delay in the timetable for implementation reflects Peers’ concerns that the previous timetable would be too rushed to allow for meaningful debate of what will be several major amendments their Lordships will seek to confirm to the Bill at the final 3rd reading stage.

3. The APA understand that the “Ping pong” stage (whereby the House of Commons and House of Lords attempt to reach agreement on differences) is likely to take place in September when the Lords are back between 5th and 15th before party conferences. The new working assumption is that the new structure will be implemented at the end of November or early December, provided that the PRSR receives Royal Assent in early September, after the summer recess.

4. The Decentralisation and Localism Bill (DL) began its Committee stage in the House of Lords on 20 June 2011. The fourth day of Committee stage took place on 30 June and further days took place on 5 and 7 July 2011. It is possible that the Committee stage will not have finished by summer recess and it will need to continue in September 2011. There have been 210 amendments tabled by 34 different peers, with only nine of these being government amendments. The government amendments all deal with the 'pay accountability' provisions of the DL, whereby chief officers of local authorities must have their salaries published each year. The timetable for implementation has always been slower than the PRSR, although it would seem that the DL is still on schedule to receive Royal Assent by the end of 2011 or early 2012.

Latest issues arising:

PRSR

A. Non-executive board

5. There has been debate in the House of Lords about a non-executive board supporting the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to ensure good governance. The amendments have not been agreed, and the debate is attached at Appendix 1.

B. Complaints and conduct matters: MOPC/ DMPC/PCC/Deputy PCC

6. As at the date of this report, Government amendments have been tabled to clause 32 and Schedule 7 of the PRSR Bill and these have yet to be debated at the time of preparation of this report. Clause 32 and Schedule 7, as currently in the Bill, provide for regulations to be made about how complaints about the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) should be dealt with. but not any complaints or conduct about the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC) nor the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC), nor any Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (Deputy PCC) The amendments provide that the MOPC, the DMPC, and a Deputy PCC will also be subject to any regulations about the handling of complaints about the conduct of those individuals, the recording of matters where there is an indication that those individuals may have committed a criminal offence, and the manner in which such complaints and conduct matters are investigated or otherwise dealt with. If these amendments are agreed, the PRSR will provide that serious complaints and conduct matters, (which are defined as a criminal offence) about the MOPC or Deputy MOPC will be investigated by the IPCC or police force (under management of IPCC). However, Regulations can provide for circumstances when serious complaints or conduct matters are not to be investigated or discontinued.

7. The Government amendments also provide that Regulations concerning other complaints which relate to the MOPC and DMPC, if the DMPC holder is a member of the London Assembly, and are not or cease to be investigated by the IPCC or a police force, must be dealt with in accordance with Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000. Part 3 of the LGA 2000 is the current ethical standards regime, which will be abolished in relation to relevant authorities in England and Police authorities in Wales when the DL receives Royal Assent.

8. If the PRSR receives Royal Assent before the DL, then this will mean that the MOPC and DMPC will be subject to the Code of Conduct regime that we currently have. When the DL is enacted, as it is currently drafted, the proposal that other complaints are dealt with in accordance with Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 does not appear to reflect the amendments proposed by the DL which is to abolish Part 3 for relevant authorities which includes the MPA. It is possible that this is an error and that the intention is that qualifying complaints will be dealt with in accordance with the new ethical regime as proposed in the DL at Part 1 Chapter 5 of the DL. This proposal would be unworkable in light of the amendments in the DL as the only provisions remaining in Part 3 will be those relating to Wales and it could not be a correct position that the MOPC and DMPC are subject to the ethical regime which will only apply to members of authorities in Wales, whereas a completely different regime applies to members of relevant authorities in England. It is expected that the amendment will be debated at the third day of report and a further oral update will be given at the meeting.

9. If the DMPC is not a London Assembly Member, regulations provide for PCPs to engage in informal resolution (although can also specify when the PCP are not involved in informal resolution or when informal resolution can be discontinued).

10. A Labour and Liberal Democrat amendment has been tabled which provides that a code of conduct for Police Commission members is to be formulated by the Committee for Standards in Public Life which will define the standards of behaviour required of Police Commission members, the commitment to equalities by such members and matters which constitute a conflict of interest for such members.

DL

11. In relation to standards, an amendment has been tabled to provisions relating to voluntary codes of conduct (clause 17(5) in HL Bill 71). The amendment would ensure that local authorities must publicise the adoption, revision or withdrawal of a code of conduct. One proposed amendment by Nick Raynsford was to ensure that authorities must adopt a code of conduct although this was defeated. There have been no other substantial amendments and therefore Part 3 of the LGA 2000 in relation to relevant authorities in England and police authorities in Wales will be abolished. The replacement ethical regime as described in the original report to the Standards Committee on 29 March 2011 remains unchanged, including the ability for authorities to decide whether to adopt, revise or withdraw a code of conduct.

GLA proposals for Standards:

12. At its meeting on 22 March 2011, the GLA Standards Committee considered a report about proposals for the establishment of a Standards regime at the GLA following the enactment of the DL. A copy of that report is at Appendix 2.

13. In summary the key elements are:

• Noting that, under section 15(1) of the Bill, “A relevant authority must promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the Authority”, the GLA would put in place a voluntary Code of Conduct for the Mayor, Assembly Members and any co-opted members (to be agreed by the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly);
• The operation of the Code should be the responsibility of the Authority’s Monitoring Officer who could seek advice from independent persons as necessary; and
• The Code / regime would be concerned with allegations of serious but non-criminal misconduct only, rather than as now, having to become active in relation to complaints, for example, regarding allegations of a member displaying a lack of respect to another member.

14. On 16 June 2011, the GLA ‘s Standards Committee held its meeting and did not discuss the future regime proposals at that meeting. However the minutes of the meeting note that an informal workshop took place at the close of the meeting to consider an options paper regarding the GLA’s future standards regime and governance arrangements. The options paper is not publicly available, although it is expected that it builds on the position set out in the paper considered at its meeting on 22 March 2011. The Authority’s Monitoring Officer will update the meeting on this point.

London authority proposals

15. It is understood that various London authorities are considering retaining:

15.1 a Code of Conduct either in its current form or in accordance with the Code of Conduct being drafted by ACSeS (see below).

15.2 a Standards Committee with independent members in order to deal with any issues arising from breaches of the Code of Conduct.

Proposals by ACSeS:

16. The Local Government Association (LGA) in association with ACSeS has issued a short guide for authorities: Maintaining High Ethical Standards in Local Government (the Guide). In addition to summarising the Bill’s standards regime proposals, the Guide helpfully outlines the conduct controls which exist in addition it. In giving an ‘aerial view’ of the law of local authority corporate governance, the Guide also mentions (amongst others):

• the fiduciary (trustee) duty of councillors as custodians of public resources;
• the registration of interests (to provide assurance to the public that decisions taken are driven solely by public interest considerations);
• relevant civil and criminal law (including misfeasance in public office and corruption offences) and electoral law and related offences;
• brief notes on the local government ombudsman and the complex areas of bias, predisposition and predetermination.

The Guide is attached at Appendix 3.

17. ACSeS has indicated that the DL’s conduct proposals are so permissive as to be practically ineffective and would therefore at the very least recommend a national code of local government conduct and the continuing enshrinement in statutory order of the principles of public life. It is of the view that if the generally high reputation of local government is to be maintained, a unified code and principles applicable to all councillors are both necessary and desirable.

18. ACSeS is currently drafting a national Code of Conduct which relevant authorities will be able to adopt if they wish to retain a Code of Conduct for members. There is a workshop at the ACSeS conference in November on the Code and the ACSeS proposed national Code of Conduct will be revealed then if not before.

Conclusions:

19. It is possible that the PRSR will receive Royal Assent before the DL as there has been criticism that the timetable for implementation of the PRSR and other significant public sector Bills has slipped. In the event that the PRSR is implemented before the DL, this would negate the need to consider how the MPA would implement the new ethical regime. However, clarification is needed about how Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 will apply if it is mostly to be abolished in the DL. A further report will be provided to Standards Committee at its next meeting which will hopefully provide more clarity on the progress of both Bills. It would seem that across London, decisions are being made about the future standards regime subject to the passage of the DL and proposals to establish a national Code of Conduct by ACSeS.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equalities Impact

There are no direct equalities issues arising from this report.

MET Forward

There are no direct Met Forward implications arising from this report

Financial implications

There are potential financial implications depending on the Coalition Government’s proposals.

Legal implications

Contained within this report.

Environmental implications

There are no environmental implications

Risk implications

Contained within this report.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author(s): Helen Sargeant, Solicitor and Monitoring Officer, 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