Richard Clifton, Marlene Heron, Joyce Melican, Tony Shields

Transcription

1 LONDON BOROUGH OF SUTTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2015 efg 7.30 pm at the Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA To all members of the Standards Committee:- Councillors: Independent Members: Independent Person: Substitutes: Richard Clifton, Marlene Heron, Joyce Melican, Tony Shields and Simon Wales Mr Anthony Hazeldine (Chair), Mr David Wales (Vice-Chair), Mr Peter Struik and Michael Evans Mr Michael Evans Councillor Daniel Sangster Niall Bolger Chief Executive Civic Offices St Nicholas Way Sutton SM1 1EA 4 September 2015

2 PLEASE NOTE: Any decision taken at this meeting does not become definitive until 10am on the third working day following the meeting. Any four members of the Council may notify the Chief Executive by then if they require a decision to be reviewed. Please contact the Committee Manager named on the Agenda front sheet for further information. AGENDA 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DECLARATION OF SUBSTITUTES 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (Pages 3-4) To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 April PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH STANDARDS ALLEGATIONS UNDER THE LOCALISM ACT 2011 (Pages 5-16) To consider changes to the Standards Committee Complaints Procedure 5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST LOG ONLINE (Pages 17-18) To consider implementing a system where declarations of interests made at meetings are logged on individual councillor pages of the website. 6. PETITION REFERRED TO FULL COUNCIL (Pages 19-26) To consider a petition presented to Council on 13 July 2015 by Cllr Nick Mattey. 7. ANY URGENT BUSINESS brought forward at the direction of the chair, who has approved the reason for the urgency. 8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next meeting will take place on 9 December 2015.

3 CIVIC OFFICES, SUTTON GROUND FLOOR MEETING ROOMS FIRE PRECAUTIONS If there is a FIRE in the building the fire alarm will sound. Leave the building immediately by the most direct route, either back through reception or the fire exit into Lower Square. Take your coat and any bags with you. Assemble in the car park in front of the Holiday Inn. Toilet Toilet Room 1 Toilet Toilet Reception Room 5 Room 4 Fire Exit Room 3 Room 2 Lower Square Entrance Exit Holiday Inn Car Park

4 Reminder Declarations of Interests Members should consider the following interests and whether they have any they should declare. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Where you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any business of the Authority at this meeting and you have either declared it beforehand in the Register of Members Interests or to the Monitoring Officer for entry in the Register you must state at this meeting that you have such an interest and then withdraw from the room or chamber where the meeting is being held whilst that business is considered. Where you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any business of the Authority at this meeting and have not previously declared it you must declare the nature of that interest at this meeting and then withdraw from the room or chamber where the meeting is being held whilst that business is considered. Other Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests Where you have any other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in any business at this meeting you must declare that interest, but may continue to speak and vote on the matter. However, if the interest is one which a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest then you should declare the interest and withdraw from the room or chamber where the meeting is being held whilst that business is considered. Further information on these matters can be found in the Council's Code of Conduct and Constitution. If you are in any doubt as to whether you have an interest you should seek advice before the committee meeting from Alexa Coates. If, during the course of the committee meeting, you consider you may have an interest you should always declare it.

5 Standards Committee 27 April 2015 STANDARDS COMMITTEE 27 April 2015 at 8.00 pm MEMBERS: ABSENT: Mr Anthony Hazeldine (Chair), Mr David Wales (Vice-Chair) and Councillors Pathumal Ali, Richard Clifton, Joyce Melican and Simon Wales. Councillor Graham Whitham. 9. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DECLARATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS There were no apologies for absence. 10. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 11. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2014 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair. 12. REGISTER OF INTEREST FORM UPDATE The Monitoring Officer (MO) introduced the report highlighting that the changes to the register of interest form were proposed to ensure greater consistency with the requirement of the Localism Act and the Openness and Transparency on Personal Interests guidance issued by Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in September In response to questions members of the committee were advised that it was the individual responsibility of Councillors to update their register of interest form and this was required within 28 days of any changes in circumstance. Members of the Committee requested that point was highlighted to Councillors and co-opted members when the updated form and guidance was circulated. The MO also advised that a Councillor had been convicted under the provisions of the Localism Act for a pecuniary interest offence, highlighting the importance on making declarations correctly. Resolved 1. That the changes to the register of interest form as set out at Appendix B to the report be approved. 2. That the use of the online gift and hospitality register separate to the register of interest form be implemented. 13. PUBLICATION OF MEMBER ALLOWANCE AND EXPENSES 1

6 Standards Committee 27 April 2015 The Monitoring Officer introduced a report proposing that in the interest of openness and transparency the sums received by Councillors under the Council Members Allowances Scheme is published through the Council s website and that a notice is no longer published in the local newspaper. The Committee also considered whether legitimate expenses incurred outside of the scheme should also be published. The Committee supported the proposals. Resolved 1. That it be agreed to publish member allowance and expenses information on the Council s website on an annual basis. 2. That other legitimate expenditure outside of the Council s members allowance scheme for example attendance at training events and conference and stationery costs such as printer cartridges also be published on the Council s website on an annual basis. 14. ANY BUSINESS THE CHAIR DEEMS URGENT There was no urgent business. The meeting ended at 8.33 pm Chair: Date: 2

7 Report to: Standards Committee Date: 16 September 2015 Report title: Process for dealing with Standards Allegations under the Localism Act 2011 Report from: Jessica Crowe, Monitoring Officer Ward/Areas affected: Borough wide Chair of Committee/Lead Tony Hazeldine, Independent Chair Member: Author(s)/Contact Number(s): Alexa Coates, Committee and Management Services Support Manager, Corporate Plan Priorities: An Open Council A Fair Council Open/Exempt: Open Signed: Date: 1 September Summary 1.1 To consider revising the process for dealing with code of conduct complaints. 2. Recommendations 2.1 To recommend to Council, via Strategy and Resources Committee, amendments to the standards committee complaints process. 2.2 To endorse contact from the Monitoring Officer by complainants over the past 12 months who did not choose to complete the Standards complaints form. 3. Background 3.1 Few formal code of conduct complaints have been received by the Council. In the last six months there has been one formal complaint which the independent member was consulted on. Over recent months some queries in relation to code of conduct complaints have been received by the Monitoring Officer, often through the Council's Freedom of Information or complaints processes. If founded some of the allegations raised would likely be breaches of the code of conduct. 4. Issues 4.1 When a query relating to a code of conduct issue comes into the Council the complainant is asked to complete a complaint form; this is a requirement spelt out in the Council's constitution. Experience over the past 12 months suggests that at this point complainants do not take the next step of completing the form which would enable a code of conduct complaint to be processed under the Standards Committee procedures. It is possible that the requirement to

8 complete a form may be seen as an overly bureaucratic barrier which puts people off pursuing what may be a legitimate complaint. 4.2 If some of the allegations raised were founded they would be considered breaches of the code of conduct therefore it is proposed that the complaints process set out in the Constitution is amended so that complaints can be taken forward providing enough information is provided at the first point of contact. To ensure the required information has been provided, officers may complete a version of the current form based on the information supplied by the complainant, send it back to the complainant to check its accuracy and then progress the complaint as per the rest of the procedure set out in the constitution. It is also suggested that the Monitoring Officer contacts the complainants who over the past 12 months opted not to complete the form to find out why. 5. Options Considered 5.1 The Standards Committee complaints procedure is part of the Council s constitution, Section 5, part 6. It is the standards committee s responsibility to promote and maintain high standards of conduct and probity for all councillors and co-opted members of the Council. It is therefore appropriate for the committee to review how the code of conduct complaints procedure is operating and suggest amendments through the Constitutional Review process. 6. Impacts and Implications Financial 6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report. Legal 6.2 The legal issues are outlined in the body of the report 7. Appendices and Background Documents Appendix Letter A Background Documents None Title Standards Committee Complaints Procedure Section 5, part 6 of the Council s Constitution Audit Trail Version Final Date: 25 August 2015 Consultation with other officers Officer Comments Sought Comments checked by Finance No Legal Yes Paul Evans, Head of South London Legal Partnership

9 STANDARDS COMMITTEE ARRANGEMENTS FOR DEALING WITH STANDARDS ALLEGATIONS UNDER THE LOCALISM ACT Context 1.1 These Arrangements set out how a complaint may be made that an elected or coopted member of this Authority has failed to comply with the Authority s Code of Conduct, and sets out how the Authority will deal with allegations of a failure to comply with that Code of Conduct. 1.2 Under sections 28(6) and (7) of the Localism Act 2011, the Council must have in place arrangements under which allegations that a member or co-opted member of the Authority, or of a committee or sub-committee of the Authority, has failed to comply with the Authority s Code of Conduct can be investigated and decisions made on such allegations. 1.3 Such arrangements must provide for the Authority to appoint at least one Independent Person, whose views must be sought by the Authority before it takes a decision on an allegation which it has decided shall be investigated, and whose views can be sought by the Authority at any other stage, or by a member against whom an allegation as been made. 2. The Code of Conduct 2.1 The Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for members, which is available for inspection on the Authority s web site and on request from Reception at the Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton. 3. Making a complaint 3.1 Complaints alleging that a member has breached the Code of Conduct must be in writing stating the paragraph of the Code that it is alleged the member has not complied with and explaining the circumstances of the non-compliance. explaining how it is alleged the code of conduct has not been complied with. The complainant must should complete the Council s complaint form and send it to the Council s Corporate Complaints Team at the Civic Offices, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA. Their telephone number is A copy of the complaint form is on the Council s web site at

10 3.2 Whilst complainants will be encouraged to complete the complaint form to ensure all required information is provided, where a complaint is received in writing and contains enough information the complaint will be progressed without requiring the complainant to complete the form. Where a complaint is received officers may seek further clarity from the complainant before progressing. Where a complaint is received orally or by the complainant will be advised to complete the complaint form. If necessary, assistance will be provided or arrangements made to enable the complainant to complete the complaint form. 3.3 The complainant must provide us with their name and a contact address or address, so that we can acknowledge receipt of the complaint and keep them informed of its progress. If they wish to keep their name and address confidential, they must indicate this in the space provided on the complaint form, in which case we will not disclose it to the member against whom the complaint has been made without their prior consent. However there may be exceptions, such as those outlined in paragraph 3.7 below. A request from a complainant for confidentiality should be supported by reasons. The Authority does not normally investigate complaints received anonymously or where the complainant cannot otherwise be identified, unless there is a clear public interest in doing so. 3.4 The Corporate Complaints Team will log the complaint and write to the complainant within five working days acknowledging receipt of the complaint. 3.5 Officers in the Corporate Complaints Team will check a complaint. If a complaint specifies that it relates to a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct by a member, or it appears that it might relate to a member and a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, then it will be passed to the Council s Monitoring Officer for further action within two working days of its acknowledgement, together with any relevant correspondence with the complainant. 3.6 The Monitoring Officer is a senior officer of the Authority who has statutory responsibility for maintaining the Register of Members Interests and who is responsible for administering the system in respect of complaints of member misconduct. The Deputy Monitoring Officer may take the role of the Monitoring Officer if the Monitoring Officer is unable to act. 3.7 The Monitoring Officer will normally disclose to the subject member the details of the complaint, except where such disclosure would be against the public interest or would prejudice any future investigation, or where the complainant has requested confidentiality. If any one of these exceptions applies the Monitoring Officer may only notify the member of the fact that an allegation has been made and the reasons why details cannot be disclosed. A complainant who has requested confidentiality will be informed if the Monitoring Officer considers that it is necessary to divulge their details to the member so that an investigation can be progressed. 4. Will the complaint be investigated?

11 4.1 The Monitoring Officer will review every complaint received and, after consultation with the Independent Person, take a decision as to whether it merits formal investigation. This decision will normally be taken within 14 days of receipt of the complaint. Where the Monitoring Officer has taken a decision, he/she will inform the complainant and the member of his/her decision and the reasons for that decision. 4.2 The Monitoring Officer will take account of the following criteria in reaching their decision:- (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) It is against a councillor or co-opted member. The councillor or co-opted member was in office at the time of the alleged conduct. If proven, the complaint would be a breach of the Code of Conduct in force at the time of the alleged misconduct. The complainant has provided sufficient information for referral for investigation or any other action. The complaint is about someone who is no longer a member of the Council, but is a member of another relevant authority. The complaint has already been the subject of an investigation or other action relating to the Code of Conduct. The complaint is about something that happened so long ago that there will be little benefit in taking action now, or it is not feasible to investigate for any other reason. The complaint is too trivial to warrant further action or not in the public interest. The complaint appears to be simply frivolous, vexatious, politically motivated or tit-for-tat. 4.3 Where the Monitoring Officer requires additional information in order to come to a decision they may seek such information from the complainant, and may request information from the member against whom the complaint is directed. 4.4 In appropriate cases, the Monitoring Officer may seek to resolve the complaint informally, without the need for a formal investigation. Such informal resolution may involve the member accepting that his/her conduct was unacceptable and offering an apology, or other remedial action by the Authority. Where the member or the Authority makes a reasonable offer of informal resolution, but the complainant is not willing to accept that offer, the Monitoring Officer will take account of this in deciding whether the complaint merits formal investigation.

12 4.5 If the complaint identifies criminal conduct or breach of other regulation by any person, the Monitoring Officer has the power to call in the police and other regulatory agencies. 5. How is the investigation conducted? 5.1 If the Monitoring Officer decides that a complaint merits formal investigation, they will appoint an Investigating Officer, who may be another senior officer of the Authority, an officer of another authority or an external investigator. The Monitoring Officer will write to the relevant parties: (a) informing them that the matter has been referred for investigation; (b) if appropriate, advising them who is to be responsible for conducting the investigation; (c) advising them how the investigation will be carried out and within what timescale; and (d) giving any member who is the subject of the investigation the opportunity to comment on the complaint made. 5.2 The Investigating Officer will decide whether they need to meet or speak to the complainant to understand the nature of the complaint and so that the complainant can explain their understanding of events and suggest what documents the Investigating Officer needs to see, and who the Investigating Officer needs to interview. 5.3 The Investigating Officer will normally write to the member against whom the complaint has been made and provide them with a copy of the complaint, and ask the member to provide their explanation of events, and to identify what documents the Investigating Officer needs to see and who he needs to interview. In exceptional cases, where it is appropriate to keep the identity of the complainant confidential or disclosure of details of the complaint to the member might prejudice the investigation, the Monitoring Officer can delete personal details from the papers given to the member, or delay notifying the member until the investigation has progressed sufficiently. 5.4 At the end of their investigation, the Investigating Officer will produce a draft report and will send copies of that draft report, in confidence, to the complainant and to the member concerned, to give them both an opportunity to identify any matter in that draft report with which they disagree or which they consider requires more consideration. 5.5 Having received and taken account of any comments which may made on the draft report, the Investigating Officer will send their final report to the Monitoring Officer. 6. What happens if the Investigating Officer concludes that there is no evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct?

13 6.1 The Monitoring Officer will review the Investigating Officer s report and, if he is satisfied that the Investigating Officer s report is sufficient, the Monitoring Officer will write to the complainant and to the member concerned, notifying them that he/she is satisfied that no further action is required, and give both of them a copy of the Investigating Officer s final report. The findings will be reported to the Council for information, without question or debate, unless the member asks that they be not reported. If the Monitoring Officer is not satisfied that the investigation has been conducted properly, he may ask the Investigating Officer to reconsider his/her report. 7. What happens if the Investigating Officer concludes that there is evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct? 7.1 The Monitoring Officer will review the Investigating Officer s report and will then either send the matter for a hearing before a Code of Conduct Panel or, after consulting the Independent Person, seek a resolution. Resolution 7.2 The Monitoring Officer may consider that the matter can reasonably be resolved without the need for a hearing. In such a case, they will consult with the Independent Person and with the complainant and seek to agree what is considered to be a fair resolution which also helps to ensure higher standards of conduct in the future. Such resolution may include the member accepting that their conduct was unacceptable and offering an apology, and/or other remedial action by the authority. If the member complies with the suggested resolution, the Monitoring Officer will report the matter to the Standards Committee for information, but will take no further action. However, if the complainant tells the Monitoring Officer that any suggested resolution would not be adequate; the Monitoring Officer will refer the matter for a hearing. Hearing 7.3 If the Monitoring Officer considers that resolution is not appropriate, or the complainant is not satisfied by the proposed resolution, or the member concerned is not prepared to undertake any proposed remedial action, such as giving an apology, then the Monitoring Officer will report the Investigating Officer s report to a Code of Conduct Panel which will conduct a hearing before deciding whether the member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and, if so, whether to take any action in respect of the member. The hearing will be attended by the Independent Person to provide advice to the Panel. 7.4 The Monitoring Officer will conduct a pre-hearing process, requiring the member to give their response to the Investigating Officer s report, in order to identify what is likely to be agreed and what is likely to be in contention at the hearing, and the Chair of the Code of Conduct Panel may issue directions as to the manner in which the hearing will be conducted. 7.5 Hearings of the Code of Conduct Panel will not be held in public.

14 7.6 A member who is the subject of a hearing may be represented by counsel, by a solicitor or, with the consent of the Code of Conduct Panel, by any other representative. 7.7 If a member who is the subject of a report to the Code of Conduct Panel fails to attend a hearing of which that member has been given notice, the Code of Conduct Panel may: (a) unless it is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for such failure, consider the allegation and make a determination in the absence of that member; or (b) adjourn the hearing to another date. 7.8 At the hearing, the Investigating Officer will open the case, calling such witnesses as they consider necessary, and make representations to substantiate their conclusion that the member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. For this purpose the Investigating Officer may ask the complainant to attend and give evidence to the Code of Conduct Panel. The member will then have an opportunity to give their evidence, to call witnesses and to make representations to the Code of Conduct Panel as to why they consider that they did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct. 7.9 The Code of Conduct Panel may place a limit on the number of witnesses a member who is the subject of a hearing may call if it considers that the number that the member proposes to call is unreasonable The Code of Conduct Panel may conclude that the member did not fail to comply with the Code of Conduct, and so dismiss the complaint. If the Code of Conduct Panel concludes that the member did fail to comply with the Code of Conduct the Chair will inform the member of this finding and the Code of Conduct Panel will then consider what action, if any, the Code of Conduct Panel should take as a result of the member s failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. In doing this the Code of Conduct Panel will give the member an opportunity to make representations to the Panel, but will then decide what action, if any, to take in respect of the matter. 8. What action can the Code of Conduct Panel take where a member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct? 8.1 The Council has decided that the Code of Conduct Panel may take such action in respect of individual members as may be necessary to promote and maintain high standards of conduct. Accordingly the Code of Conduct Panel may :- (a) (b) (c) Instruct the Monitoring Officer to arrange training for the member. Publish its findings in respect of the member s conduct. Report its findings to Council for information, without discussion or debate.

15 (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) Chair of the Standards Committee write to the member with their advice on the conduct. Censure or reprimand by the Code of Conduct Panel. Recommend the Council to censure. Recommend the removal of the member from all outside appointments to which they have been appointed or nominated by the Authority. Recommend to the member s Group Leader that the member be removed from particular portfolio responsibilities. Recommend to the member s Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped members, recommend to the Council or to committees) that the member be removed from any or all committees or sub-committees of the Council. Withdraw facilities provided to the member by the Council, such as a computer, web site and/or and internet access. Exclude the member from the Council s offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, committee and sub-committee meetings. Recommend to change/adopt a Council process. 8.2 The Code of Conduct Panel has no power to suspend or disqualify the member or to withdraw the member s allowance. 9. What happens at the end of the hearing? 9.1 At the end of the hearing, the Chair will state the decision of the Code of Conduct Panel as to whether the member failed to comply with the Code of Conduct and as to any actions which the Code of Conduct Panel resolves to take. 9.2 As soon as reasonably practicable thereafter the Monitoring Officer will prepare a formal decision notice, in consultation with the Chair of the Code of Conduct Panel, and send a copy to the complainant and to the member, make that decision notice available for public inspection and report the decision to the next convenient meeting of the Standards Committee. 10. Who are the Code of Conduct Panel? 10.1 The Code of Conduct Panel will comprise three members of the Standards Committee (one from each political group on the Council and an Independent Member).

16 10.2 The Independent Member will be a member of the Standards Committee appointed by the Council following an open advertisement. They will not be a member of any political group. 11. Who is the Independent Person? 11.1 The Independent Person is a person who has applied for the post following advertising of a vacancy for the post, and is appointed by a positive vote from a majority of all the members of Council. They must be consulted by the Monitoring Officer before they decide whether or not to carry out an investigation and are available to advise a member who is the subject of a complaint. It is a statutory appointment A person cannot be independent if he/she:- (a) (b) Is, or has been within the past five years, a member, co-opted member or officer of the Authority. Is a relative, or close friend, of a person within paragraph (a) above. For this purpose, relative means (i) spouse or civil partner; (ii) living with the other person as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners; (iii) grandparent of the other person; (iv) a lineal descendent of a grandparent of the other person; (v) a parent, sibling or child of a person within paragraphs (i) or (ii); (vi) a spouse or civil partner of a person within paragraphs (iii), (iv) or (v); or (vii) living with a person within paragraphs (iii), (iv) or (v) as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners. 12. Withdrawal of complaint 12.1 The complainant can request, but there is no right, to withdraw a complaint and it is for the Monitoring Officer in any particular case to consider and decide whether or not to agree to a withdrawal. When making a decision the Monitoring Officer will give due consideration to such matters as: a) whether there are identifiable underlying reasons for the withdrawal request; b) whether the public interest in taking action on a complaint outweighs the reasons behind the complainant s withdrawal request; and c) whether the complaint can be adequately investigated without the complainant s participation.

17 13. Revision of these arrangements 13.1 The Council may by resolution agree to amend these arrangements, and the Chair of the Code of Conduct Panel may depart from these arrangements where they consider that it is expedient to do so in order to secure the effective and fair consideration of any matter. 14. Appeals 14.1 There is no right of appeal for the complainant or for the member against a decision of the Monitoring Officer. The member may seek permission to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against any sanction imposed by the Code of Conduct Panel If either party feels that the Authority has failed to deal with the complaint properly, they may make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

18

19 Report to: Standards Committee Date: 16 September Report title: On-line declarations of interest log Report from: Jessica Crowe, Monitoring Officer Ward/Areas affected: Borough wide Chair of Committee/Lead Member: Tony Hazeldine, Independent Chair Author(s)/Contact Number(s): Alexa Coates, Committee and Management Services Support Manager, Corporate Plan Priorities: An Open Council A Fair Council Open/Exempt: Open Signed: Date: 1 September Summary 1.1 To consider the implementation of a declarations log online for declarations of interest made by Councillors at committee meetings. 2. Recommendations 2.1 To approve the use of an online declarations log for declarations of interest made by Councillors at committee meetings. 3. Background 3.1 Section 29 of the Localism Act 2011 requires the Monitoring Officer to establish and maintain a register of members and co-opted members interests and to make the register available for inspection and publish on the Council s website. The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 set the disclosable pecuniary interests required to be registered under the Act. 4. Issues 4.1 When members have a disclosable pecuniary interest, which is not recorded on their register, and which relates to any business that is, or will be, considered at a meeting where they are present it must be disclosed. Sutton s Constitution requires that when a member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in an item they must withdraw from the meeting whilst the business is considered. 4.2 When a member makes a disclosable pecuniary interest at a meeting which was not recorded on their register of interest, they must notify the Monitoring Officer within 28 day of the disclosure for inclusion on their register of interest form. 4.3 The Sutton Constitution also requires that members declare any non-disclosable (nonpecuniary) interests that they feel other members should be aware of when making decisions.

20 4.4 In the interest of openness and transparency it is recommended that as well as being recorded in the minutes of the meeting, any pecuniary or non-pecuniary declarations are logged on the Council s committee management system which are accessible on each individual Councillor page. 5. Options Considered 5.1 There is no legal requirement to log information in this way so the committee have the option not to implement this system. However it is proposed in the interest of openness and transparency. It makes information relating to declarations of interests much easier to find which has an impact on Freedom of Information requests. Currently when FOI requests are made in relation to specific declarations made by Councillors at meetings requesters are referred to meeting minutes where the information is not easily accessible. 6. Impacts and Implications Financial 6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report. Legal 6.2 The legal implications are set out in the body of the report. 7. Appendices and Background Documents Appendix Letter None Title Background Documents None Audit Trail Version Final Date: 1 September 2015 Consultation with other officers Officer Comments Sought Comments checked by Finance No Legal Yes Paul Evans, Head of South London Legal Partnership

21 Report to: Standards Committee Date: 16 September 2016 Report title: Petition referred by Full Council Report from: Jessica Crowe, Monitoring Officer Ward/Areas affected: Borough wide Chair of Committee/Lead Member: Tony Hazeldine, Independent Chair Author(s)/Contact Jessica Crowe, Monitoring Officer, Number(s): Corporate Plan Priorities: An Open Council A Fair Council Open/Exempt: Open Signed: Date: 2 September Summary 1.1 To consider a petition referred to the Standards Committee by Full Council. 2. Recommendations 2.1 That the Committee notes the request to set up an independent inquiry and determines that this is not required for the reasons set out in section 4 of this report 2.2 That the Committee agrees to commission a further report on the council's member development programme, setting out how the council is ensuring that all members are fully aware of their obligation to follow the Nolan Principles and to uphold the code of conduct at all times in their behaviour as elected members. 3. Background 3.1 At the Full Council meeting held on 13 July 2015, Councillor Nick Mattey submitted a petition which has been referred to this committee for consideration. The petition has 495 signatures and the petition prayer is set out below: We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens and demand a full enquiry by an independent body into the activities of Viridor Credits, Viridor Limited and their relationship with Sutton Council members. We want to know why the Council described the incinerator as an Energy Recovery Facility and hid its true purpose. We want the Viridor incinerator stopped as vital information about its purpose and environmental impact of the incinerator has been withheld or the information was delivered in a misleading fashion. We believe that the London Borough of Sutton has acted contrary to the Nolan principles of ethical standards in public life and has acted against the best interests of residents of Hackbridge and Beddington.

22 3.2 In accordance with Part 4E of the Council s Constitution, Scheme for dealing with petitions and e-petitions Councillors can present a petition on behalf of petitioners to a meeting of the Council. The scheme sets out how a petition with 495 signatures will be dealt with at a committee meeting: the spokesperson (in this case Cllr Nick Mattey) may talk to the petition for up to 5 minutes and the petition will then be considered. If the petition is about something over which the council has no direct control, consideration will be given to taking the matter up on behalf of the community. 3.3 This Committee s remit is limited to considering matters relating to the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct and probity for councillors and other members and to advising the Council on issues in connection with the operation of its Code of Conduct. It cannot take a position on any other policy matters and would need to refer any recommendations for action that go beyond its remit to the appropriate standing committee(s) for their consideration. 4. Issues 4.1 The petition's main request is for an independent inquiry into Viridor Credits (a charity set up to distribute the Landfill Communities Fund), Viridor Ltd (which is a waste collection and disposal company) and their relationship with Sutton Council members. It has been referred to the Standards Committee as the petitioners argue that the Council has breached the Nolan Principles. There are various pieces of national guidance on when and whether to set up an inquiry of this nature and it is not a simple matter of deciding whether there is public concern about an issue. 4.2 Guidance is provided on independent and public inquiries by Government for central government purposes. The Cabinet Office Inquiries Guidance states that Ministers take a number of factors into account when deciding whether to establish an inquiry, including whether the public interest will be served by an inquiry rather than another form of investigation and whether that public interest will outweigh the costs. A select committee post-legislative scrutiny of the 2005 Inquiries Act quoted the secretary, solicitor and counsel of the Rodney Inquiry, that: "The first principle we believe should underlie the use of public inquiries is that a matter of public concern has been identified which cannot be allayed by lesser means such as investigation by an established regulatory body." 4.3 Local authorities have the power to establish an independent inquiry into their own actions and their relationships with partners and third party organisations if this is reasonable in all the circumstances. There is no prescribed format such an inquiry may take and the Council would need to balance the need for an inquiry in the light of any allegations and evidence available, the cost, and the likelihood that the inquiry could be conducted effectively. An inquiry would normally be conducted with the appointment of a suitable external individual or firm with agreed terms of reference and timescale. The inquiry may include inviting third parties to be interviewed, the investigation of evidence and the drafting of a report which may be published (usually with some redactions where third party confidentiality is raised). The inquiry would not have the power to compel any witnesses to attend, although officers and serving Councillors would generally be in breach of the relevant Codes of Conduct if they did not do so. A

23 reasonable timescale if any individuals or external organisations are interviewed would be at least four to six months. 4.4 It is important to consider both whether there is prima facie evidence of wrong-doing that requires an independent investigation, and also whether an inquiry set up by the council is the best and most reasonable mechanism for doing so. 4.5 The link that is alleged to exist between the three entities referred to in the petition arises from a grant made by the Viridor Credits to Holy Trinity Church in Wallington, a church in which a number of former Sutton elected members are active members of the congregation. The allegation is that these members may have engineered the appointment of Viridor by the South London Waste Partnership (SLWP) as the provider of an Energy Recovery Facility in Beddington, following a procurement process run by SLWP in 2011, in return for a grant by the Viridor Credits to the Holy Trinity Church. 4.6 This is a serious allegation and if true would not simply involve a breach of the Nolan Principles. If there was any evidence that the allegation was founded, the council would immediately refer the matter to the police as it would more properly be a matter for them to investigate. 4.7 The first issue to consider, therefore, is whether there is any prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, either to refer the matter to the police or to consider setting up an inquiry. The allegation referred to in the petition is that a former council member, Mr John Drage, is a congregation member at Holy Trinity Church and also a personal friend of the former Chief Executive of Viridor Ltd, Colin Drummond, and that this connection led to the grant to the church and, in return, the awarding of the contract to Viridor by the South London Waste Partnership. It is alleged that there was a breach of the Code of Conduct because then Cllr Drage did not declare this friendship as a personal interest at the meeting of SLWP on 22 September 2011, which determined that Viridor would be the preferred bidder, and the meeting of Sutton's Executive on 7 November 2011 which ratified that decision. It is known publicly that this friendship existed because in 2012 when Cllr Drage spoke at Sutton's Planning Committee on the planning application for the ERF, he did declare a personal interest. His publicly stated reason for not declaring it earlier is that the friendship (which was an old one, based on his wife having known Mr Drummond at university 40 years earlier) had fallen into abeyance and he did not regard it as a significant relationship - or in the language of the Code of Conduct at the time, a "person with whom you have a close association". By 2012, it had been renewed, following Mr Drummond inviting the couple to a formal dinner, which Cllr Drage also declared publicly in the hospitality register. 4.8 As far as the Council is aware, no council member (or indeed, officer) had any involvement in the decision-making by Viridor Credits over the grant to Holy Trinity Church. In relation to Council nominations to the local body that considers applications for Viridor Landfill Communities Fund grants and makes recommendations to the main board, Mr Drage was appointed to this body after he stepped down as a councillor, in He has been asked about this and states that he had no communication from the Viridor Credits Board while he was the Council s nominee between May 2014 and May 2015, and the organisation itself states that it has no knowledge of him. He has therefore not participated in making any recommendations in

24 respect of making any grants. He has also categorically stated that he had no role in his church applying for and gaining this grant other than pointing out to them that they fell within the boundaries to be eligible for Landfill Communities Fund grants. 4.9 The committee will be aware that when determining whether to investigate a complaint that there has been an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer is required under the current standards regime to consult the Independent Person and to consider a number of criteria, including whether the member concerned is a current member of Sutton Council. No formal complaint under the Code of Conduct has been made in relation to the matter referred to in the petition about any current or former member of Sutton Council Other than former Cllr Drage's non declaration of a relationship with Mr Drummond in 2011 (and his explanation of this set out above), no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claims of improper decision-making that may have been in breach of the Nolan Principles in relation to any links between Viridor Credits, Viridor Ltd and Sutton Council members It has been suggested that the council should set up an inquiry to find evidence to substantiate the allegations. The difficulty with this proposal is that Viridor Credits, Viridor Ltd and Holy Trinity Church are entirely independent entities over which the Council has no jurisdiction. Similarly a number of the individuals involved are no longer Council members and the Council therefore has no powers over them as private citizens. There are no statutory grounds on which the Council can compel any of these bodies or people to give evidence to an inquiry. The Council cannot require witnesses to give evidence under oath for example, as government-instituted inquiries can; nor can it require persons and papers to appear before or be submitted to any of its bodies as Select Committees in Parliament can. An inquiry set up by the Council would therefore be of limited value in attempting to produce any evidence to back up the allegations of wrong-doing Thirdly the committee may wish to consider that there are a number of other bodies, such as regulators which in the government's view are more appropriate to investigate whether there is a serious issue of public concern, before an independent inquiry is considered. If there are concerns about how funds have been distributed by Viridor Credits, an organisation called ENTRUST was set up in 1996 to regulate the original Landfill Tax Credits Scheme (now Landfill Communities Fund) on behalf of HM Revenue and Customs. ENTRUST oversees the distribution of funds under the LCF and is thus the regulator set up for the explicit purpose of determining whether grants have been properly or improperly made Viridor Credits itself is an independent charity (registered charity number: ) set up to administer distribution of the Landfill Communities Fund and is wholly separate from Viridor Ltd. It is regulated by the Charity Commission, which has a remit to investigate any complaints about charity malpractice or breaches of charitable law If the concerns are with the actions of the Holy Trinity Church, although this is not mentioned directly in the petition, again the oversight for this institution does not lie with the Council - indeed there are strict separations between secular and religious regulation. The Church of

25 England website advises that serious complaints about members of their clergy or churches should be made in writing to the Diocesan Bishop It can therefore be seen that there are a number of regulators who do have jurisdiction over the external bodies mentioned in the petition and are better placed than the council to carry out any inquiries into whether there has been malpractice In relation to the further allegation in the petition that the true purpose and environmental impact of the ERF (described in the petition as an incinerator) has been hidden or misrepresented, the Council strongly refutes this. The Council has never knowingly provided any inaccurate information about the purpose or the environmental impacts of the Energy Recovery Facility, either through publication or omission. We are aware that there are often very strong opposing views about facilities such as the Beddington ERF and respect the right of individual residents and others to disagree with the decision (taken by all four of the councils who are members of the South London Waste Partnership) to set up the ERF. However, the Council is obliged - and has always sought - to take balanced decisions in the long-term overall interests of the borough and its citizens. Issues relating to the environmental impact of the facility were thoroughly tested through the planning process, which itself was fully tested through an exhaustive judicial process which ultimately dismissed all the grounds for appeal against the decision to grant permission. The hearings in the court proceedings were carried out in public and the judgment is available This Committee s remit does not include determination of environmental policy. However, the following background is provided for the Committee s information to facilitate its consideration of the issues raised by the petition. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' definition of Energy from Waste, which is what the Beddington ERF will do, is that it is the process of creating energy, usually in the form of electricity or heat, but also potentially biofuels, from the thermal treatment of a waste source via technologies such as incineration, anaerobic digestion, gasification or pyrolysis. Energy Recovery Facility is the commonly used term for facilities like the one in Beddington which will use non-hazardous residual (post-recycling) waste as fuel to generate energy. There are over 20 such facilities already operating in the UK and hundreds more across Europe Each year the four councils in the SLWP handle in the region of 300,000 tonnes of residual and recyclable waste, with residual waste sent to the landfill site at Beddington. Replacing the Beddington landfill site with the ERF forms part of the aims of the four councils to improve the environment by reducing the amount of residual waste that goes to landfill. Landfill produces very damaging greenhouse gases such as methane, which is 24 times stronger than carbon dioxide (CO2), and contributes more towards global warming than vehicle emissions. As a result, in 2018 when residual waste from the SLWP is treated at the ERF instead of being land filled, CO2 emissions will reduce by 128,000 tonnes each year The ERF is not an incinerator that burns waste and does nothing else. It will be designed to produce 26 megawatts of electricity a year for the national grid enough to power the facility itself plus 30,000 homes. The ERF will also have all the internal technology needed to create 20

26 MW of heat energy a year, which has the potential to provide low-carbon heat (or non-fossil-fuel sourced heat) to local developments Energy Recovery Facilities burn waste at high temperatures under carefully controlled conditions. The process is extremely efficient, robust and safe. Emissions are treated to meet required standards under the stringent European Industrial Emissions Directive, which is strictly enforced and monitored by the Environment Agency. The process also produces bottom ash (the bulk of remaining materials after combustion), which can be recycled for use as aggregate material in the construction industry; metals, which are recycled; and Air Pollution Control residue (APCr), which is either recycled or safely disposed of at licensed facilities The above information comes from Sutton Council's website. The Council is committed to putting as much information as it can into the public domain and is working with the other boroughs in the SLWP and Viridor to ensure the company meets its obligations to keep residents fully and accurately informed as works on the site and facility progress The concerns raised by the petitioners illustrate the importance of all members thinking carefully about their obligations to declare interests under the Code of Conduct, whether these are the disclosable pecuniary interests specified in the Localism Act or the other interests to be declared as set out in the Council s Code of Conduct in accordance with members Nolan Principles obligations. The Committee may wish to consider assuring themselves of the actions that the Council is taking to ensure all members are and remain reminded of these obligations There are items elsewhere on the Committee s agenda which demonstrate that the Council continues actively to review and promote the operation of the Code of Conduct and to uphold standards of good governance. It is suggested that the Committee may also wish to commission a report on the member development programme overall, with a particular focus on members awareness of the code of conduct and the importance of good and ethical governance and decision-making. 5. Options Considered 5.1 If the Committee determines that an independent inquiry is required in all the circumstances the Committee can decide to make such a recommendation to the Strategy and Resources Committee which has the delegated authority to establish such an inquiry. The inquiry would be carried out by an appropriate individual or respected firm engaged by the Council with terms of reference agreed by the Strategy and Resources Committee. The timescale can be estimated at four to six months and the cost would be in the region of 30,000 to 50, An independent inquiry as requested by the petition is not recommended due to the likelihood that it would not be able to uncover any further information that is not already in the public domain, and the fact that alternative regulators and remedies to address the issues raised already exist and are better placed to investigate the issues raised. Many issues surrounding the ERF have already been exhaustively reviewed and investigated during the judicial review process and it is unlikely that a council-commissioned inquiry could uncover further information beyond that which has been fully tested in the courts.