Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2024 (Minute Nos. 269 – 273) as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 24 September 2024 (Minutes Nos. 269 – 273) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report which set out the Government Consultation on the Standards Regime. He asked Members to consider whether they would like to submit a formal response on behalf of the Council.

The Monitoring Officer went through the questions in the consultation, as set out in Appendix I of the report, and recorded the formal responses which the Standards Committee wished to give on behalf of the Council.

Comments and responses to the questions were as follows:

Question one:  (c) Borough Council.

Question two: Yes.

·      Supported the idea of a mandatory minimum code of conduct, but would like to see the Local Government Association (LGA) input into the code;

·      many Local Authorities looked at the LGA as a good starting point for a code of conduct;

·      the LGA was an association not a governing body and a proper code of conduct needed to have the right support network for councillors;

·      further information was needed around the appeals process and how it could be implemented at a national level; and

·      the answer should be yes, but the government needed to provide a framework within the minimum code of conduct.

Question three: Unsure.

·      Could not make a clear decision because it was not clear what flexibility the government would give on adding or removing specific local challenges from the code of conduct;

·      thought it needed to be a prescribed national approach;

·      agreed with a mandatory minimum code but each Local Authority should have the opportunity to add local issues, that affected their area, rather than national issues;

·      could not think of any instances as to why the Council would want a local code of conduct with specific local issues; and

·      it was unclear on how the additional specific local challenges would be added.

The Monitoring Officer advised that the wording suggested there was the ability to add to the code and not remove parts from it. If Members were undecided there was an option ‘unsure’.

Question four: No.

Question five: Yes.

Question six: Yes.

·      Standards Committees were beneficial so long as they gave value for money for tax payers; and

·      Standards Committees had processes looked at by Members and without a committee, standard proceedings would be conducted behind closed doors and away from the public, which did not seem transparent.

Question seven: Unsure.

·      Decisions should be heard by the Standards Committee;

·      there was an element of ‘fairness’ when conducting a standards panel hearing as less people were dealing with the particular issue;

·      did not see any merit in standards hearings being considered at Full Council;

·      standards hearing panel could be un-politically balanced;

·      when a serious standards complaint was received it should then be considered by Full Council;

·      having a standards hearing behind close doors, could make the individual feel like it was biased; and

·      when hearings were conducted in public, all parties were being held accountable.

Question eight: Unsure.

·      Independent persons on standards committees should be given voting rights to avoid any claims of bias;

·      changes needed to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 659.

The Chair informed the Committee that following the decision made at the October 2024 Full Council meeting, there were still some outstanding DBS checks from Members. There had been 25 Councillors who had returned a full DBS check.

The Chair agreed to chase group leaders for the remaining DBS checks.