Standards (Hearings) Sub-Committee 5 August 2010

STANDARDS (HEARINGS) SUB-COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Standards (Hearings) Sub-Committee was held on 5 August 2010.

PRESENT:G Fell (Chair)

Councillors McPartland and Sanderson

OFFICERS:M Braithwaite, C Davies, R G Long and K Metcalfe

** ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Taylor, C Bell, J Mooney (Middlesbrough Brough Cars Ltd. (Complainant).

** ALSO IN ATTENDANCE AS OBSERVERS: Councillors Hubbard, McIntyre, McTigue and members of the public.

**DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - There were no declarations of interest.

As a preliminary stage, the Chair welcomed people to the meeting, introduced the Sub-Committee members and confirmed that the relevant parties had received a copy of the report incorporating the procedure for the meeting.

** EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

As notification had not been received prior to the meeting from any of the relevant parties that the matter should be considered in private, the Chair sought the views of Sub-Committee Members, the complainant and the Member concerned as to whether the meeting should to be held in private or open session. Taking account of guidance by Standards England and, as there were no objections, it was determined that the meeting be held in public.

MSC008/2010 – Allegations of breach of the code of conduct

The Director of Legal and Democratic Services submitted a report of an investigation under Section 59 of the Local Government Act 2000 regarding a complaint from the directors of Middlesbrough Borough Cars Limited (Mrs Christine Bell, Mr John Moon and Mr Mohammed Bashir). The complaint alleged that through his actions, whilst acting as Chair of the Licensing Committee held on 22 February 2010, Councillor B Taylor had failed to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

In addition to the Monitoring Officer’s report Members also received copies of the Code of Conduct; procedures for the hearing; the Investigating Officer’s report and its various appendices. Mrs Christine Bell on behalf of the company (the complainant) confirmed that a copy of the report had been received.

The complaint had been referred to and considered by the Standards (Initial Assessment) Sub-Committee held on 24 June 2010 which was in two parts. The basis of the first part of the complaint was that whilst keeping personal notes of the meeting Mrs Bell had asked Councillor McTigue, who had been sitting next to her, the name of a councillor who was addressing the meeting at that time (Councillor George Rogers). Before Councillor McTigue had time to respond, the Chair, Councillor Taylor directing his comments to Mrs Bell had shouted “no talking between yourselves”. The manner in which these comments had been made was felt to be rude, abrupt and dismissive and failed to treat Mrs Bell with respect and breached Section 3(1) of the Code.

The second element of the complaint related to Mrs Bell’s requests to Councillor Rogers and Councillor Taylor for information, specifically to name Councillor Rogers. Mrs Bell first asked Councillor Rogers for his name; this request was refused. She then subsequently asked Councillor Taylor as Chair of the meeting to name the councillor. This further request was also refused with Councillor Taylor stating that the only name he was obliged to give was his own. In this respect therefore the complainants felt that Councillor Taylor had brought his office or authority into disrepute breaching Section 5 of the Code.

The Standards (Initial Assessment) Sub-Committee concurred with the findings of the Investigating Officer’s report and concluded that in their view the Councillor’s behaviour had not breached the Code of Conduct in regard to the first element of the complaint. However, it had felt that the Councillor could have breached the Code in regard to the second element of the complaint.

The relevant section of the Code of Conduct was:

Section 5.You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be

regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.

Councillor Taylor confirmed that he had not disputed the basic account of events as detailed in the Investigating Officer’s report. He had no questions in regard to the report but provided comment on the general process and mode of conduct used when chairing meetings of the committee and outlined the background to those particular processes. He acknowledged that the format for introducing those present at Licensing Committees was not based on any formal policy but was custom and practise.

Having considered the Investigating Officer’s report, the supporting documentation, the Officer’s further comments and comments and responses to questions from Mrs Bell and Councillor Taylor, the Chair asked Councillor Taylor whether he felt he had breached the Code. Councillor Taylor considered that he had.

On that basis and prior to adjournment the Chair sought the views of the Investigating Officer, Mrs Bell and Councillor Taylor in regard to the level of sanction to be imposed. It was suggested that although the matter had breached the Code of Conduct it was at the lower end of the scale.

The Chair then adjourned the meeting to enable the Sub-Committee to consider the penalty to be imposed.

On reconvening the Chair summarised the issues and reported the decision of the Sub-Committee.

In summarising the Chair stated that the Licensing Committee sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, and that of itself imposed additional responsibilities on the Chair to follow the rules of natural justice. One of the rules was a right to a fair hearing. That involved the whole of the committee hearing all the evidence in whatever form that may be, a statement, answers to questions etc. Failure to do so could lead to any decision of the committee being open to challenge. That may be difficult if a Member’s attention was diverted by some outside influence. In this instance Councillor McTigue’s attention had been diverted, by speaking to an objector albeit in an unobtrusive manner and probably very briefly. The person who spoke to Councillor McTigue was, for all practical purposes, the complainant, Mrs Christine Bell

The committee noted that comments in the investigating officer’s report that asked the question, that if Christine Bell had simply passed a note to Councillor McTigue, would that have been wrong? The answer to that may be yes. Councillor McTigue was part of the decision making process. Therefore a piece of paper from a person with an interest in the decision, without more, could be seen as an attempt to influence a member of the Licensing Committee. Members accepted entirely that that was not the case but were aware of judicial proceedings that had been held null and void as a consequence of written notes changing hands.

Although the investigating officer had advanced that the initial comment by Councillor Taylor as complained of by Middlesbrough Borough Cars Limited “No talking…….” was not a breach of the Code, that set the scene and was the catalyst for what followed.

At that point Mrs Bell, further interrupted the proceedings asking for the councillor’s name and then interrupted the meeting again asking the Chair for the councillor’s name. The Sub-Committee considered that Councillor Taylor’s response was inappropriate. However, Mrs Bell’s actions in interrupting the meeting were also inappropriate and were a contributory factor.

Whilst properly interested persons had a right to be heard at meetings of the Licensing Committee, it was important that the role of the two were kept separate. Local Authority committees do not make decisions by negotiation with members of the public. They may make decisions after consultation.

In the opinion of the Sub-Committee Councillor Taylor should have asked Mrs Bell not to interrupt the proceedings. The question being asked was not a material consideration to the matters before the committee. The Chair could have offered to provide the requested information at the end of the item once the decision had been made. Nevertheless, the Chair overreacted by dealing with the matter in the manner in which he did. There were ways of dealing with interruptions to council proceedings. The manner in which Councillor Taylor dealt with the interruptions brought the Council into disrepute.

Members’ felt that similar situations could in the future be avoided if

(1)Every member of the committee (the Licensing Committee) had a name plate in front of them that could easily be read by the public.

(2)That the public and those who wish to speak are kept separate from the committee members.

ORDERED as follows:

1.That having regard to the evidence presented the Sub-Committee determined that in regard to the second element of the complaint, the matter before the Sub-Committee, Councillor Taylor had breached Paragraph 5 of the Council’s Code of Conduct and brought his office or the authority into disrepute.

  1. That no further action be taken against Councillor Taylor.
  1. That the Council writes a formal letter of apology to the directors of Middlesbrough Borough Cars Limited.

1