Agenda item

Verbal update from the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer

The Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer introduced a brief presentation (attached) which offered an overview of implications of the Localism Act 2011 which had received royal assent on the 15 November. 

She had not produced the relevant sections (25-37) as she was still awaiting further detail and the suggestion was that the Committee should meet around the end of January in order to discuss the detail.

The Standards Board for England had written to Monitoring Officers with reference to the transitional arrangements for the abolition of the “Standards Board Regime” and the current intention was that this would take effect on the 31 March 2012.  Prior to this, their regulatory role in handling cases and issuing guidance would stop from a date that would be set out in regulations but which was currently anticipated to be the 31 January 2012. From this date, Standards for England would no longer accept new referrals from local standards committees or conduct investigations into complaints against members. Any existing referrals or investigations that had not been completed by this time would be transferred back to the relevant authority for completion, but it was not yet clear what action would then be taken. 

It would be for DCLG to confirm when the other standards elements of the Localism Act 2011 would come into force.  The Council could choose to retain a local standards committee and it could also choose to use the existing Code of Conduct suitably amended.  She suggested that best practice would be established amongst local authorities in order to achieve common ground and similar codes.  It was the aim of South West Solicitors to reach broad agreement with some local variances as applicable.  

There would be a move back to pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests from personal and prejudicial interests and knowingly failing to register or disclose a pecuniary interest would be a criminal offence.  The Council would need to make their own local arrangements for the investigation of complaints, though there was not yet any indication as to the possible sanctions for other breaches.

The Council would need to appoint at least one independent member and debate was ongoing as to whether current independent members could be retained. 

She explained that the Code of Conduct must contain, among other things, the legal requirement to publish Members registers of interest on the Councils website, which was not currently the case.  In the case of Parish Councils the Monitoring Officer had to establish and maintain register of interests of Parish Councillors and publish them on the website.  Parish Councils were at liberty to have their own code but may choose to adopt the Borough Councils as suitably adapted or something similar as long as it met requirements. 

There were no draft regulations or guidance available at this time and given that the regulations would contain greater detail the Monitoring Officer was unable to provide any more information on further implications.  It would be for the committee to recommend proposals for compliance to the requirements of the Localism Act to Council.  The suggestion was that a workshop event would be arranged for late January or early February 2012 at which Members would consider suitable local arrangements for the Borough Council. 

The Monitoring Officer provided the following responses to questions from Members;

• The Act placed predetermination on a statutory basis.  Simply expressing a personal view on something did not constitute predetermination when making a subsequent decision.
• Fraud had always and would remain a police matter.  The Code covered conduct and not criminal activity. 
• As before, a member would be disqualified should they receive a sentence of imprisonment (or suspended imprisonment) for a prescribed term. 

The Monitoring Officer would look at dates at the end of January and start of February 2012 and circulate them to Members as soon as possible.