To continue the review of the elected Members’ Model Code of Conduct (the Model Code) as authored by the Local Government Association (LGA), in comparison to Tendring District Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct (the TDC Code), for eventual determination as to whether to recommend the Model Code to Full Council for adoption.

Further to Minute 30 (6.4.22) the Committee continued its review of the elected Members’ Model Code of Conduct (“the Model Code”) as authored by the Local Government Association (LGA), in comparison to Tendring District Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct (“the TDC Code”), for eventual determination as to whether to recommend the Model Code to Full Council for adoption.

 

The current adopted Members’ Code of Conduct, as detailed within Part 6 of the Council’s Constitution was attached as Appendix A to the Monitoring Officer’s report.  The Code set out the standards, values and rules of conduct that elected Members of Tendring District Council were expected to abide by.

 

The LGA’s Model Code was attached at Appendix B to the Monitoring Officer’s report. The aim of the Model Code was to provide consistency for Members across Parish, Town, District and County Councils, especially for those Members representing two or more electorates (also known as ‘dual or triple hatters’). Guidance issued by the LGA on the Model Code was attached at Appendix C to the Monitoring Officer’s report.

 

The Committee recalled that, at its last meeting held on 6 April 2022 (Minute 30 referred), it had been appraised of the differences between the Rules of Conduct within the TDC Code compared with the Model Code and that the provisions relating to interests would be considered separately at this meeting.

 

To that end it was reported that the TDC Code had two types of Members’ Interests namely Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) and Personal Interests.  The Model Code referred to those as Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registrable Interests and Non-Registerable Interests.  It could appear from first glance that the Model Code either covered interests in more detail or had introduced an additional type; however in essence they were broadly similar as the TDC Code, albeit condensed under its two headings. 

 

Under both the TDC Code and the Model Code, it remained the responsibility of the individual Member to keep their registration of interests complete, up to date and accurate.

 

The TDC Code stated that Members were required to register details of their Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and their Personal Interests (that a Member was aware of at the time) within 28 days of becoming a Member (or being re-elected or reappointed) or a change in those details, in the Authority’s Register of Interests.  The Model Code required DPIs and only those personal interests which fell within the categories set out in Table 2, defined as Other Registerable Interests, to be registered.

 

Within the “Current Position” section of her report, the Monitoring Officer had endeavoured to explain (as summarised below), the differences between the interest provisions within the Codes.  Upon review, the main difference to highlight was the impact of Paragraph 9 within the TDC Code being withdrawn from all types of Personal Interests although a test was still applied to those Non-Registerable Interests within the Model Code which ‘affected’ the interest.

 

1.      DPI provisions within each Code

 

Whilst the Codes were worded and formatted differently, the requirements therein were based on the Localism Act 2011 and the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 and, therefore, the Monitoring Officer considered that the Model Code did provide additional guidance and if adopted would not change the requirements of the TDC Code.

 

2.      Personal Interests / Other Disclosable Interests

 

The “Other Registerable Interests” within the Model Code were almost identical to TDC’s definition of Personal Interests however, the TDC Code gave further flexibility to speak on an item subject to the assessment of the Public Interest test, without seeking a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer.  The Model Code prohibited a Member possessing an Other Registerable Interest from speaking at the meeting unless the public was permitted to speak at the meeting and if a dispensation had been granted.  The Monitoring Officer foresaw that this would have an impact for those Members who were appointed to outside bodies by the Council.

 

3.      Model Code Non-Registerable Interests and TDC Personal Interests

 

Paragraphs 7-9 of the Model Code were again very similar to Paragraph 5(f) of the TDC Code, but made very slight distinctions between ‘directly relating to’ and ‘affecting’, and it was important to highlight the impact of Paragraph 9 within the TDC Code compared with the Model Code:

 

The TDC Code:  9. Effect of Personal Interests on participation

 

“9.1 If a Member has a personal interest (not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest) in any business of the Authority which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Members’ judgement of the public interest and they are present at a meeting of the Authority at which such business is to be considered or is being considered the Member must:-

 

(a)  Declare the existence and nature of the interest in accordance with paragraph 7.1 (but subject to paragraph 12)

(b)  Withdraw from the room or chamber where the meeting considering the business is being held, immediately after making representations or in any other case when the business is under consideration, unless they have obtained a dispensation from the Authority’s Monitoring Officer.”

 

Therefore, under the Model Code, if adopted, a Member possessing a Non-Registerable Interest as defined in Paragraph 7, which directly related to their financial interest or well-being or a financial interest or well-being of a relative or close associate, could ONLY speak on the matter IF members of the public were also allowed to speak at the meeting but otherwise that Member must not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not remain in the room unless a dispensation had been granted. 

 

If the Member possessed a Non-Registrable Interest which affected the financial interest or well-being etc. a similar test in TDC Paragraph 9 was applied.

 

4.      Register of Gifts & Hospitality

 

The value of the gift or hospitality was the same.  However, the Model Code did provide further text and guidance which was similar to the TDC Guidance Note, which had been issued separately. Therefore bringing both of those together could be helpful for Members, rather than them having to look at two different documents.

 

The Committee was made aware that from further conversations between Monitoring Officers across the County, there was still an appetite to adopt the Model Code subject to approval from respective Full Councils.  The following Essex local authorities had either recommended the adoption of the Model Code or had adopted the Model Code: Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea City Council, Basildon Council, Maldon District Council and Castle Point Borough Council.

 

In addition, Members were advised that, when the current TDC Code had been adopted in 2018, the majority of Town and ParishCouncils within the District had adopted the revised Code, to align with TDC.  A number of Town and Parish Councils were now adopting or considering adopting the LGA Model Code, and were therefore seeking advice and guidance from this Authority on its position.

 

The Committee was informed that there was no particular risk to this Authority in terms of the conduct and standards of its Members whether the Committee decided to recommend the adoption of the LGA Model Code or to retain and update the current TDC Code.  There was the potential of an element of reputational risk if the LGA Model Code was not adopted i.e. questions would be asked as to why it had not been adopted by TDC when many authorities across the county, along with Town and Parish Councils, had adopted it or were considering doing so.  Additionally, the streamlining of authorities would not be in place with differing codes being applicable to individual authorities, which could lead to some confusion, however those risks were minimal and would not affect the day-to-day practice of this Authority.

 

Should the Model Code be adopted then training would be required for all Members which could be delivered by Officers through dedicated sessions.

 

The Committee then duly considered and discussed this matter. That discussion included the following:-

 

(i)         Which local District Councils and Parish/Town Councils had considered adopting the Model Code;

 

(ii)        The Monitoring Officer’s professional opinion on whether to adopt the Model Code or remain with the Tendring Code;

 

(iii)       The flexibility within the TDC Code of speaking at a Committee meeting if a Member had a personal interest whereas this flexibility to speak was removed within the Model Code;

 

(iv)       The benefits of adopting the Model Code;

 

(v)        The frequency of applications from Members for dispensations under the current code with regards to speaking at meetings where they had a personal interest;

 

(vi)       Gifts & Hospitality – the guidance given to Members;

 

It was moved by Councillor Land, seconded by Councillor Steady and unanimously:-

 

RESOLVED that the Standards Committee:

 

(a)    notes the contents of the Monitoring Officer’s report and its Appendices;

 

(b)    confirms its satisfaction of the comparison of the Tendring District Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct and the LGA’s Model Code of Conduct; and

 

(c)    recommends to Full Council that the LGA Model Code be approved and adopted.