To consider the Government response to the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life following its review of Local Government ethical standards. 

7.1             The report of the Corporate Director, circulated at Pages No. 8-23, updated the Committee on the government’s response to recommendations made to it by the Committee on Standards in Public Life following its review in 2018/19 of local government ethical standards. The Committee was asked to consider that response.

7.2             The Corporate Director explained that, at its meeting in September 2019, the Committee had considered the report published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life which contained 26 recommendations and 15 best practice suggestions. At its meeting in November 2020, the Committee considered the best practice recommendations and made its comments. The government’s response was set out within the report to Committee categorised into the five headings of: government to take action; further consideration/keeping under review; matter for local authority determination; further engagement with sector needed; and taking no action/rejects recommendation.

7.3             In summary, the government had taken action on two of the recommendations to date; that candidates standing for, or accepting, public office not be required to disclose their home address; and that disciplinary protections for Statutory Officers extend to all disciplinary action not just dismissal. The government had five recommendations which it was considering further/keeping under review and seven where further engagement with the sector was needed. Four recommendations were concluded to be within the gift of the local authority; the Corporate Director was of the view that the government was correct in its assertion that it was for each local authority to decide its gifts and hospitality procedure; to decide whether to provide legal indemnity to its Independent Persons; to decide whether to publish details of the Code of Conduct complaints received each year; and to decide whether Parish Councils must adopt the Code of Conduct adopted by their principal authority. In this regard most Parishes had adopted Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Code which was not dissimilar to the new Model Code so it seemed inappropriate to impose the requirement on Parishes. There were seven recommendations which the government was taking time to consider and further engage with the local government sector and those mostly related to sanctions, when they could be imposed and how they would be imposed – whilst Tewkesbury Borough Council’s experience of the current system had been satisfactory that was not necessarily a universal view so it seemed appropriate for the government to take time to consider this and ensure they were right. Referring to the four recommendations which had been rejected, the Corporate Director was particularly pleased that the Independent persons would not be required to be appointed for a fixed term of two years which could only be renewed once.  The Committee had disagreed with that recommendation during the consultation process as it was felt not to be a productive use of time or resources to have to change the Independent Persons for no reason.

7.4             During the discussion which ensued, a Member noted that there was no date contained on the letter attached to the report and the Corporate Director agreed that this was unusual but it appeared to have been omitted on this occasion. Referring to gifts and hospitality, the Member noted that the Mop Fair opening was soon and she was unsure of the amount of hospitality she would receive and therefore whether or not it should be declared. In response, the Head of Democratic Services confirmed that this was different as it was an invite from the Mayor and the hospitality was that of the Borough Council rather than the Mop Fair operators. Finally, the Member referred to Member Interests and the difference in detail that some Members recorded compared to others – she tended to record everything for safety but this then felt like an infringement on her personal life, she also expressed concern that sometimes the County Council gave different advice to the Borough Council on whether something should or should not be declared. In response, the Corporate Director confirmed that ultimately it was for each Member to decide what to include on their Register of Interests. Within the Code of Conduct there were disclosable pecuniary interests and other registrable interests which must be declared but the Council’s own Code of Conduct included other external bodies which was discretionary, the County Council did not have the same rules on that and this was one of the reasons for the review of the Code of Conduct and a drive to try and get all of the authorities in Gloucestershire to agree one countywide Code so there was a consistent approach for all which should make it easier for Councillors and the public to understand. The view taken by the Officers at Tewkesbury Borough Council was it was better to put everything down than to miss something; however, if there was an interest that needed to be treated as sensitive the Member should speak to the Monitoring Officer about it. There had been quite a few queries from Parishes recently regarding land, licences and beneficial interests; training was provided but unfortunately the turnover in Parish Councillors tended to be quite high so queries often needed to be addressed on an individual basis.

7.5             A Member noted that the wording throughout the report mentioned Independent Person and Independent Persons and he questioned which it should be. In response, the Corporate Director indicated that the wording was that used by the government so was not something she could change, although she was of the view that it should be persons.

7.6             Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the government response to the recommendations from                             the Committee on Standards in Public Life following its review                                of Local Government ethical standards be NOTED.