To appoint a Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing year.

RESOLVED that Mr Michael Eveling be elected Chairman for the ensuing year.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2011.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence had been received from Mrs S Matthews, Mr B Rayner and Mr G Ridgway.

To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

None.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Members’ Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a personal or prejudicial interest.

None.

To note the names of any non-members wishing to address the meeting.

None.

Any applications received for the Parish Council representatives will be put before the Committee, in order for a short list (if possible) to be drawn up.  There will be at least two representatives needed.

It is suggested that a sub-Committee is then appointed to interview those on the short list and to make a recommendation direct to full Council on 23 June for their appointment, since the next meeting of this Committee is not scheduled until 5 July.

Members reviewed the applications received and chose five to be invited for interview.

The Solicitor suggested that a Sub-Committee should be appointed to carry out the interviews.  It was agreed that the Sub-Committee should comprise one Independent Member, one District Councillor and one Parish Member.  Mr Eveling, Mr Williams and Mr Rayner were nominated, with Mr Sharpe acting as substitute.  A date would be arranged and notified to Sub-Committee Members.

All of the dispensations granted by the Committee to Parish Councillors expire at this year’s elections.  It is recommended that authority is given to the Monitoring Officer to grant the same dispensations (ie for the same reasons and purposes) on formal application by the newly elected parish councillors from the same authorities.  Most of the dispensations relate to charities where the parish councillors are all trustees of the charity.

A list of the Dispensations made by the Committee had been circulated to Members.

It was AGREED to authorise the Monitoring Officer to grant applications received for dispensations from parish councillors from the Parish Councils where dispensations have previously been granted, for the same purposes, to May 2015.

List of previous dispensations attached for information.

To note the proposed dates for future Sub-Committee meetings.

The Standards Officer advised Members that it had been very helpful to have set dates for potential Sub-Committee meetings and asked if the practice could continue.  This was agreed.

She would circulate a table of proposed dates (usually the first Tuesday of the month) and Members were asked to note their availability and return the completed table to her.  She would notify Members each month if the date was not required.

A verbal update will be given on any new developments and on the progress of the Bill, from the Standards point of view.

The Solicitor advised that very little information had been received and there was talk of amendments but it was not known to which parts of the Bill.

With regard to Parish Councils, one comment had been noted.  It referred to the Specified Person to maintain the Register and said that the responsibility might remain with Monitoring Officers of District Councils.

At the last meeting of this Committee, a report from the Norfolk Monitoring Officers meeting was made (Minute No 26/11), and the Committee asked to consider at this meeting what questions to put before the Leader relating to the future of Standards.

Possible questions include:

(1)               whether the Leader/Executive would be in favour in principle to a voluntary Code of Conduct for Breckland when the existing national Code is withdrawn;

(2)               to note that the Committee strongly believes that Independent Members can have a beneficial impact and role to play, particularly from the perspective of the public, and whether it is contemplated that they will be retained in a future Standards Committee;

(3)               whether there is any support for a County wide voluntary Code of Conduct and/or joint Standards Committee.

The Committee’s instructions are requested.

The Chairman thought that it would be useful if the Leader and Executive were advised of the views of the Monitoring Officers and also take strong note of the Committee’s views from the last meeting with regard to the importance of the role of Independent Members and support for a Voluntary Code, either just for Breckland or County wide.

Mr Williams said that the Leader had been in favour of Independent Members in an informal discussion with him, prior to the elections.  He personally felt that the Committee should remain, especially now that the Council had shared Management with South Holland District Council.

Mr Sharpe was concerned that there would be long term problems if the Code was voluntary as it might apply to some areas of the District and not to others.

It was agreed that more details were needed from the Localism Bill, but the Chairman thought it was still important to put the Committee’s views to the Leader.

The Solicitor noted that there had been talk of a draft report at the Monitoring Officers’ meeting, but it had not been prepared yet by Norfolk County Council.  Once it was available he would bring it to a future meeting.

The Chairman asked that it be circulated to Members in advance of the meeting if possible.

It was RESOLVED that the Leader be provided with feedback from the Monitoring Officers’ meeting and also be asked:

1. if he and the Executive would be in favour, in principle, of a voluntary Code of Conduct for Breckland when the existing national Code is withdrawn;

2. to note that the Committee strongly believes that Independent Members can have a beneficial impact and role to play, particularly from the perspective of the public, and whether it is contemplated that they will be retained in a future Standards Committee; and

3. whether there was any support for a County wide voluntary Code of Conduct and/or joint Standards Committee.

To note items for inclusion on future agendas.

The following item was suggested for a future agenda:

• Training and Standards for new Members.

To note the date of the next meeting on 5 July 2011.

The arrangements for the next meeting on 5 July 2011 were noted.

To consider passing the following resolution:

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.”

RESOLVED that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

For information, to let members know which matters are in progress at present.

Information was tabled on the outstanding complaints and investigations.  The Solicitor informed Members that there was a lot of work, all at different stages of the process.

It was noted that more than one Sub-Committee meeting might be required in June to deal with the workload.